Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Schooling (Benefit)

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the number and percentage of 16-year-olds who, by most educationally recognised criteria, have not benefited from their schooling experience.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): We believe that improvements are possible in the standards achieved by the great majority of pupils of all abilities. Our policies for school education are designed to bring about such improvements.

Dr. Mawhinney: Does my hon. Friend agree that a number of children do not substantially benefit from their schooling and that this is a sad reflection on some aspects of the teaching profession? Is that not the best possible vindication of the Government's intention to introduce teacher assessment as soon as possible?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend's interpretation is entirely right. We are improving the training of teachers. We are seeking broad national agreement on the objectives of the curriculum. We are bringing in via pilot schemes records of achievement for all school leavers. The system of appraisal to which my hon. Friend referred is entirely right and proper at this stage.

Mr. Alexander: Does my hon. Friend accept that some teachers seem to be unaware that literacy and numeracy are very important? Will my hon. Friend stress to those teachers that a youngster who cannot write a job application without spelling mistakes—he may have left school able in the studies of dance, drama and comparative religion—will not be able to obtain a job in competition with his colleagues who can?

Mr. Dunn: We have always taken the view that, whatever the trends in standards in the past, we must continue to improve the position. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that a child who cannot read or write—whatever his talents or abilities—will suffer in later life. I am sure that teachers generally and those who provide education share that view.

National Union of Teachers

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has had any recent discussions with the National Union of Teachers concerning the pay and conditions of its members.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I met the representatives of the National Union of Teachers on 21 January to explore prospects for further joint consideration of performance appraisal for teachers.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that he is dealing with a responsible trade union which is protesting about the fact that during four of the past five years the annual salary increase has fallen behind the inflation rate? Why is the right hon. Gentleman not seeking a solution to this problem, bearing in mind that we are witnessing the second year of destruction in the classroom? Has the right hon. Gentleman received advice from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this dispute, like the mining dispute, is another worthwhile investment for the nation?

Sir Keith Joseph: The meeting was to discuss the performance appraisal for teachers. Although we discovered that the National Union of Teachers and I had a considerable amount of common ground, I must tell the House that I remain in favour of a close link between performance and pay. That would require regular appraisal of professional performance. I would certainly welcome a new pay system in which good teachers receive differential rewards. Appraisal can serve a variety of other purposes, such as fostering professional development of teachers and underpinning the more effective management of the teacher force. If progress on appraisal in the context of pay negotiations is too slow—all the evidence points that way—it is my duty to explore the possibilities for progress in other ways.

Mr. Madel: As there is a need to build into the teacher salary system a proper method of assessment, and as there is still confusion and argument about the actual duties of teachers, should not the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 be drastically amended to take account of the new conditions?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am not absolutely convinced that we know of a better system to put in its place, but I am ready to listen to suggestions. I know that representatives of the local education authorities will meet me soon to discuss my hon. Friend's proposition.

Mr. Freud: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that much of the grievance is caused by ossification in the structure of education, and that many of those who are most ready to go out on strike are the able teachers who are unable to get promotion? Does he accept that there is a vast amount of goodwill on all sides towards restructuring education? What does he intend to do about coming clean with the teachers about the money that is available?

Sir Keith Joseph: I accept that the fall in the number of pupils has sharply reduced the promotion prospects for teachers, and that is an added reason why an appraisal system might replace some of the prospects for some of the teachers in the light of changing circumstances due to a fall in the number of chidren at school. As for the potentially


increased money that is available, I am aware of the suggestions that an extra 7 per cent. might be available in addition to the increase that might result from annual negotiation. I see no prospect whatsoever of such an increase. I hope that the teaches' leaders will not mislead their members.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no justification for teachers taking action in pusuit of pay demands that harms their pupils? Is he aware that many teachers would prefer it if their professional voice was represented by a general teaching council and not by a union that has imported values that are properly alien to the teaching profession?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree that, for the vast majority of teachers, it must be almost unthinkable to damage the education prospects of children in their charge. As for a general teaching council, the Government are willing to listen to arguments in its favour, but I am not convinced that it is automatically a force for good. I remain to be convinced.

Mr. Flannery: Do not the Conservative Government think that there is never any justification for any group of people taking action? Does not a vote of 12,000 out of 14,000 in the 23 areas, because they have fallen behind since Houghton by over 30 per cent., show that teachers have been driven to desperation, and that that is why they are taking action? Why does the Minister want to wed the wage demand to the restructuring when these people need the money now and he could do the restructuring at another time?

Sir Keith Joseph: The employers have made it clear that 4 per cent. is as much as they can afford. Capacity to pay must be the paramount consideration in pay settlements. I know that this is unpalatable to the teachers, but it remains an inescapable reality.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind that the third largest teachers union — the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association—has decided this week not to take strike action, does my right hon. Friend agree that ways must be found to give fairer representation to those unions that are acting in the best interests of professional teaching?

Sir Keith Joseph: From time to time the constitution of the Burnham committee comes up for consideration by the holder of my office, particularly when applications for the membership to be reconsidered are made in the light of changed factors. I am open to suggestions that that time may come before long, but I am not convinced that that has happened yet.

Mr. Radice: Has the Secretary of State noticed that this is the second successive year when he will have presided over disrupted classrooms and a demoralised and undervalued profession? Does he not understand that it is his job to bring the parties — the teachers and the employers—together? Why does he not arrange to see both parties immediately?

Sir Keith Joseph: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that what the negotiating machinery should be is laid down in statute. It is not for me to intervene in that statutory process. As for the second year of disruption, I should have thought that that added to the arguments for the teachers to consider seriously the proposals, in some form,

that have been laid before them by the employers, although I must again repeat that the amount of money that might be available which I have seen quoted is wholly misleading.

Teachers (Pay)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in resolving the teachers' salary claim; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Keith Joseph: On 28 January the teachers panel rejected the management panel's offer of a 4 per cent. pay increase and refused arbitration. A further meeting of the Burnham committee was held on 11 February but no agreement was reached.

Mr. Taylor: Given the damage that will be done to children's education, will my right hon. Friend appeal even to the members of the National Union of Teachers not to join in this militant action while negotiations are still alive, and will he give us some idea of the actual salary claim that has been submitted by the NUT?

Sir Keith Joseph: I certainly appeal to the teachers not to disrupt the interests of the children in their charge. I believe that many teachers, even those who belong to the unions that have suggested disruption, will think many times before taking disruptive action. As for the evaluation of the teachers' pay claim, I have seen estimates which suggest that it might cost as much as 50 per cent. of the present remuneration of teachers, but lesser figures have also been canvassed.

Mr. Nellist: Will the Secretary of State accept that in addition to the 23 local education authority areas mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), in which three days' industrial action is to take place next week in pursuit of the teachers' pay claim, many thousands of other teachers will also refuse to cover for absent colleagues and make voluntary contributions at lunchtime and after school to the duties they perform in the schools in which they work. Will the Secretary of State therefore advise his political friends on Solihull district council that since those duties are voluntary and are not part of the teachers' contract, the district council should not be proposing to take the NUT to court under the Trade Union Act 1984.

Sir Keith Joseph: Such decisions are entirely for the local education authorities concerned, but the teachers ought to consider whether it is in their interests, in seeking higher esteem as professionals, to disrupt the education of the children in their charge. I believe that the vast majority of teachers will not do it.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that ordinary teachers are aware of the possibilities of enhancement that could come from restructuring? Does this not also cast a light on the effectiveness of the present Burnham structure?

Sir Keith Joseph: I think that there has been a misconception and that it has sometimes been encouraged by some of the teachers' unions. Some form of teaching assessment, preferably associated with pay, might enhance the career development of teachers and improve the deployment of teachers by their employers, for the benefit of all the children.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Secretary of State be more constructive this afternoon and recognise that teachers do an extremely difficult job, that they do it very well and that since Houghton their pay has fallen by 30 per cent.? Will he also recognise that it is a good pay claim, that teachers are worth paying properly in the interests of our children and that he ought therefore to intervene to resolve this dispute?

Sir Keith Joseph: I certainly recognise that teaching is a hard job and that most teachers try to do it as effectively as possible. I accept that in the years immediately after Houghton while a Labour Government were in power the benefit of that pay increase was rapidly and dramatically eroded. Since the Tory Government came into office in 1979, teachers have had an actual increase in real pay. If they were to get anything like the increase which they are now seeking, the result would be an increase in unemployment, the level of which we already very much deplore.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning the NUT has clearly indicated that it will continue strike action during the examination period? Is this not a dereliction of the duty of teachers to look after the interests of every pupil?

Sir Keith Joseph: I think that my hon. Friend misunderstands the situation. I cannot believe that most teachers would wish to do such damage and, indeed, I hope that the NUT has not given such guidance.

Mr. Radice: While understanding the constitutional position, may I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that he is perfectly entitled to call the parties in and to tell them how much money is available?

Sir Keith Joseph: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would join me in expressing what I am sure is a genuine feeling, that disruption of children's education is in no way justified. There is a negotiating machinery, and I have no right to call the parties in to negotiate. The employers have made it plain that 4 per cent. is the most that they can afford, and that is the inescapable reality.

Children (Paid Employment)

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has issued any guidance to local education authorities in relation to the impact upon the education of children under 16 years of age of their taking paid employment.

Mr. Dunn: No, Sir.

Mr. Fatchett: I am grateful to the Minister for that lengthy answer. Against the background of the recent Low Pay Unit report, which showed extensive and occasionally illegal part-time employment of children under the age of 16, will the Minister consider reviewing, and possibly extending, the power of local education authorities so that they may intervene in circumstances where it is clear that such employment is damaging the education of the individual child?

Mr. Dunn: I am aware of the allegations in the recent Low Pay Unit report "Working Children" about the illegal employment of children. Clear responsibilities are already laid on parents, employers and local education authorities.

I understand that most local authorities now follow the lines of a circular issued in 1976, and we have no further plans.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is not the recent activity in some schools of children under 16, picketing and threatening to strike, indicative of an attempt to copy those in paid employment, such as teachers, who are supposed to be teaching those children?

Mr. Dunn: I am not entirely sure whether my hon. Friend's question follows from the answer I have just given. None the less, the point can validly be made that if teachers wish to set an example they must carefully consider the action that they propose to take, both in and out of school.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that many children no longer get full benefit from their education because of family poverty and that some children take extemely badly paid part-time jobs, either at early or very late hours, which do not allow them to get the full benefit from their education? Will he press the local authorities to enforce the legislation so that youngsters cannot be exploited in this way?

Mr. Dunn: It is always of concern to us if laws to protect the welfare of children are not properly enforced. Employers have a duty to obey the law, and parents have the primary responsibility for the welfare of their children. Therefore, it is not just the local education authorities who have a responsibility in this matter.

University Incomes

Mr Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the change in the annual incomes in real terms of universities since 1979; and whether the income of Oxford university has changed in the same way as the average for all universities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke): The annual recurrent income from all sources of universities in Great Britain increased by 10·8 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1982–83. The corresponding increase for the University of Oxford was 9·3 per cent. The figures do not allow a true comparison between years because of changes in funding arrangements during the period and the provision of additional funds for reductions in staff.

Mr. Greenway: Given that there has been higher spending on education in real terms under this Government, including spending on Oxford university and its lecturers' salaries, was it not deplorable that that university's congregation recently decided not to confer the traditional honorary degree on the Prime Minister—its most famous daughter—on the spurious ground of education cuts and without a proper study of the facts?

Mr. Brooke: The House will recall the observation that no cause should be considered lost until the University of Oxford has espoused it.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister understand the bafflement of those universities which have a technological specialisation who appear to have been singled out particularly for loss of income, when they believe they are doing a good job to enhance the economic structure of the country?

Mr. Brooke: It is true that the University Grants Committee in 1981 exercised discrimination between various institutions, but it is also true that Loughborough and Bath, which were previously colleges of advanced technology, were beneficiaries when others were not.

Mr. Stokes: Can my hon. Friend say whether there is any relationship between the amount of money that taxpayers give to Oxford and what comes out of that university?

Mr. Brooke: The late Richard Crossman used to say that Whitehall and Westminster were dominated by Oxford because there was a better train service to Oxford than to Cambridge, but the House will recall the observation of Hazlitt:
You will hear more good things on the outside of a stagecoach from London to Oxford than if you were to pass a twelvemonth with the under-graduates, or heads of colleges, of that famous university.

Pupils (Expenditure)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil at secondary schools in England in real terms in 1979 and in the most recent year for which figures are available.

Mr. Dunn: Local education authorities in England spent an average of £850 per secondary pupil in 1979–80 and £945 in 1982–83, the latest year for which firm figures are available. Both figures are at 1982–83 prices.

Mr. Knox: Do these figures not make nonsense of the Opposition's claims about education cuts? Does my hon. Friend think that the increase in expenditure per secondary school pupil has been accompanied by an improvement in standards?

Mr. Dunn: I am pleased to tell the House that under this Government since 1979 spending per child per year on education has increased in real terms, allowing for inflation. Expenditure per child is at an all-time record. We have not cut spending per child, but have increased it. Much of that increase has gone on improving the pupil-teacher ratio to another all-time record. What matters is how effectively we spend the available money and the standards that are achieved.

Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister not deceiving himself and possibly deceiving the House when he tries to pretend that things are improving under the present regime? May I remind him that with high unemployment and poverty there are greater demands for free school meals and necessary clothing? Is he aware that last year the cost of books went up by 15 per cent. and the cost of paper by 18 per cent.? In view of all that, how can we be improving education?

Mr. Dunn: I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Inspectorate made it clear in its reports on the effects upon education provision of local education authority expenditure policies that there is no simple relationship between expenditure on the one hand and the quality of education and the achievement of pupils on the other. The major message is that better use could be made of available resources, given more efficient management at the level of local education authority and school alike.

Teacher Assessments

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next intends to meet teacher trade unions to discuss the introduction of teacher assessments.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to introduce teacher assessment.

Sir Keith Joseph: Following my discussion with representives of the National Union of Teachers on 21 January the Department is consulting the other teacher associations and the local authority associations to explore the prospects for further joint consideration of the appraisal of teachers' performance.

Mr. Eggar: Does my right hon. Friend notice the almost universal welcome for his proposals on teachers' assessment? Does he not think it essential that annual assessment should be linked to pay increments? Does he agree that the vast majority of teachers would welcome such a move, even if the unrepresentative leaders of the NUT would not?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with my hon. Friend that there must be a large number of teachers who would welcome at least discussion of the possibility. I remind the House that the Government stand ready to make available some taxpayers' and ratepayers' money for the carrying out of pilot schemes on the workability of appraisal systems.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in assessing the quality of staff in schools the head teacher's role is fundamental and that, therefore, the highest quality of head teacher should be appointed, who should then be given more freedom than is currently the case to dismiss those members of staff who are not coming up to scratch?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with the first two limbs of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. As for the third, it is important that head teachers and others concerned should be able more systematically to use in-service training for the benefit of teachers who can be improved in their effectiveness thereby.

Mr. Madden: Why do the Government believe that substantial extra resources should be given to the already well-off by way of tax cuts to make them work more effectively, but that teachers' salaries should be reduced substantially to make them work more effectively?

Sir Keith Joseph: There is no question of reducing teachers' salaries, which have kept pace with inflation in real terms since 1979. The hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding the current emphasis on tax cuts, which many of my hon. Friends believe should go to raise the tax threshold and thus to increase the net earnings of those on all levels of pay.

Mr. Woodall: How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to assess teachers when a late hon. Friend of mine had a brother-in-law who obtained two double firsts in English at Cambridge university and who was employed at his local grammar school, where it was widely accepted that he could not teach for toffee?

Sir Keith Joseph: The assessment would need to be by people who could judge the effectiveness in the classroom


of each teacher, which would mean including the head teacher, the head of department, the teacher's own peers and representatives of the local education authority. The Government propose to run pilot schemes to assess the best way to carry out the appraisal. I hope that hon. Members will remember that there are many callings where assessment is regular and taken for granted.

Dr. Hampson: Will my right hon. Friend consider suggesting to the unions that there are serious problems with the teachers' career structure? Does he agree that with the tremendous collapse of the birthrate and the reduction in promotional posts in schools, it is vitally important to have some form of discriminatory assessment that gives encouragement to the best teachers?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with every word of that supplementary question. Even if the pay factor were not considered, the necessity for some system of appraisal to improve the use of in-service training is itself a strong argument for it.

Mr. Radice: How much extra money will be available to support a new structure system?

Sir Keith Joseph: I have told the world of education and the House several times that if the employers of teachers and the teachers' associations agree on a system that I can fully accept as negotiable, affordable and good for education, I shall be willing to take the agreement to my colleagues, though I have always emphasised that I cannot guarantee that my colleagues will make the necessary money available.

Oxford University

Mr. Galley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the total income, at 1985 prices, from grants and fees to Oxford university in 1979; and what it is estimated to be in the current year.

Mr. Brooke: The total income of Oxford university, from recurrent grant allocated by the University Grants Committee and from university tuition fees for home full-time students, increased in real terms from £46·2 million in the academic year 1979–80 to an estimated £46·9 million in the academic year 1984–85. These data are in 1983–84 cost terms. The figures are not strictly comparable because of certain changes in funding arrangements over the period.

Mr. Galley: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures, and other comparative figures which are available, suggest a continuing preferential treatment for Oxford university? In view of the declining reputation of that university — [Interruption] — is he prepared to reconsider resource allocation in the higher education sector so as to give a better deal to modern and progressive universities in the north of England, such as Bradford and Salford?

Mr. Brooke: In an earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) I explained that the University of Oxford had done less well than the generality of universities. It is now nearly 50 years since we had a Cambridge man in Downing street. If the University of Oxford insists on committing hubris, we run the risk of being visited with the nemesis of another Cambridge man.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister accept that while we, at least at face value, accept his figures, some of us have had our faith in higher education restored by the Oxford decision, and in this case believe that it is money well spent?

Mr. Brooke: I see the rhythm of the questions running. The funding issues are complex. I regret sometimes that they are not quite as well understood in the University of Oxford as elsewhere.

Teacher Training (Report)

Mr. Bruce: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, having considered the views of the seven voluntary organisations representing deaf and blind children, he is now in a position to make a statement on the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers' report on teacher training and special educational needs.

Mr. Dunn: My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales are still considering the report of the committee. When reaching their decisions they will take account of the views of the seven organisations to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that the ACSET report caused considerable concern among teachers of the visually and orally handicapped? Will he now recognise that he should announce as quickly as possible that special qualifications will continue to be required? Will he further recognise that the move towards care in non-specialist schools should not be used by the Government as a means of downgrading standards, and that special schools and special teachers will continue to be required on a proper scale?

Mr. Dunn: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's sincere interest in this matter. Our aim at all times is to improve standards. I am afraid that he must wait a little longer before my right hon. Friends are in a position to make an announcement.

Mr. Favell: Is my hon. Friend aware that not only those involved in the training of teachers of the deaf but the parents of deaf children are very concerned about the proposals in the ACSET report, and that the sooner the fears that have been raised are laid to rest, the better?

Mr. Dunn: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago. We have been made fully aware by hon. Members and directly of the concern that parents, teachers and those responsible for the provision of education for the deaf and blind feel about the proposals. Again, the House must wait a little longer before we are in a position to make an announcement.

Mr. Ashley: Will the Minister acknowledge that deaf and blind children have special educational needs, and that removing the mandatory requirement for special educational qualifications for their teachers can be justified only if the special education need is removed? Since, in the nature of the case, that is impossible, it would be quite wrong to remove this specialist qualification for teachers of blind and deaf children.

Mr. Dunn: The House will know of the right hon. Gentleman's deep feelings on this matter. However, I must remind the House that the ACSET report on teacher


training and special educational needs included a wide variety of recommendations on training generally and on the staffing of schools. The House will understand, I am sure, that these recommendations and the comments that my right hon. Friends have received deserve careful consideration.

Mr. Stern: Would my hon. Friend care to count the number of times that he has given a virtually identical answer to this question? While it is accepted that these matters must take some time, would he spare a thought for those teachers in deaf units and deaf schools whose anxieties seem to them to have been held in suspense for a very long time?

Mr. Dunn: I note the views of my hon. Friend, but again I must ask him to be patient. We are fully aware of the uncertainty over the proposals and the need to reach an early resolution of them. We shall do the House and the education service no benefit if we rush into early decisions which might in themselves cause a deterioration of the service provided.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister accept that at present there is great uncertainty in the universities and other places providing specialist courses and that he must make a statement urgently? Is he aware that particular alarm is felt by all those involved in special education, in that the Government's White Paper on public expenditure refers to cutting expenditure on special education by approximately 10 per cent. in real terms, when the number of children involved is falling by approximately only 1 per cent.?

Mr. Dunn: Because opinion was so divided on some of the recommendations that were made, we felt it necessary to take a great deal of time in considering the proposals and their effects on those who teach the deaf and the blind. None the less, I note the views of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).

Education Provision

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the implication of the White Paper on public expenditure, Cmnd. 9428, for education provision.

Sir Keith Joseph: Provision for local authority current expenditure on education in 1985–86 is increased by nearly £300 million over previous plans, when allowance is made for the abolition of the national insurance surcharge and the transfer of some funds to the Manpower Services Commission. For universities, additional resources have been provided for the improvement on a selective basis of science equipment in universities, but planned recurrent expenditure is slightly reduced as a consequence of the revised pay assumption.

Mr. Roberts: Why does the Minister behave like Pontius Pilate in blaming local authorities for his own actions? Surely he is calling the tune because he is refusing to pay the piper. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that, for instance, in the White Paper there is an 11·3 per cent. cut in revenue for special education provision for those in most need, the disabled and the handicapped, and a dramatic cut in capital expenditure for provision for the under-fives, when only about 40 per cent. of them can participate is such education? Does not the right hon.

Gentleman not accept that — [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] You would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that as honours have been heaped upon me by my school, unlike other hon. Members, they would listen with some respect. [Interruption.] Conservative Members have raised the subject enough today. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the provisions in the Government's public expenditure White Paper mark an attack on education provision?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is forgetting, while he sits back smirking with self-satisfaction—

Mr. Roberts: I am listening.

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is forgetting, first, that there is still a fall in the number of children in schools, secondly, that there is an unallocated margin in addition to that shown for education, part of which will be spent on education; and thirdly, that I announced in my answer to him an increase of £300 million.

Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that much of the money that is set aside in the White Paper for education provision will go to secondary school pupils between the age of 11 and 16 who will not take their places at school because they are hard-core truants? Is there not a link between hard-core truancy and teenage crime? Will my right hon. Friend set about discussing with colleagues in the Home Office how that evil can be stamped out?

Sir Keith Joseph: I accept much of what my hon. Friend says. The Government hope to publish soon proposals to improve the effectiveness of the education welfare service.

Mr. Ryman: Is it not possible to get a sensible answer from the Secretary of State? How does he reconcile the answer that he has just given with his recent decision to refuse permission to Northumberland county council to build a high school in Cramlington?

Sir Keith Joseph: In order to reduce the risks of yet higher unemployment by overspending, the Government are restraining the capital allocations for local education authorities.

Schoolchildren (Statistics)

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his latest estimate of the number of children in school by 1 January 1987.

Mr. Dunn: By January 1987, some 7·5 million children are projected to be in schools in England.

Mr. Colvin: While accepting that the quality of teachers may be more important than their quantity, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that it is the policy of his Department to go on improving pupil-teacher ratios even though school rolls may continue to fall?

Mr. Dunn: We are of the opinion that money saved on taking surplus places out of use can best be spent within the school to improve facilities and the pupil-teacher ratio. In that sense, I agree with my hon. Friend.

Student Finance

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he anticipates publication of the Government's discussion document on student finance.

Mr. Brooke: That has yet to be finally decided, but I hope that the consultative paper will be published during the first half of the year.

Mr. Marlow: Is not the present system desperately unfair as between students, in that some get a full grant and some do not get a full grant and do not get it made up? Will the Government consider taking the amount of money that is available and spreading it equally among students and allowing them to make up the difference from some sponsor, from work or by borrowing from the bank, the banks having been spoken to and persuaded by the Government that they should bring forward a loans scheme?

Mr. Brooke: It would be wrong for me to anticipate the terms of the consultative document, but I do not think that my hon. Friend will be disappointed by the breadth of the options that we offer.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister accept that in many parts of the country even highly qualified graduates are facing long periods of unemployment? How would they be able to repay loans with which he may favour them and to which his hon. Friend has referred?

Mr. Brooke: I was not in any way prejudging or prejudicing how the consultative paper will be written, but I am encouraged that prospects for graduates have improved significantly during the current year.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Stern: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with my ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the TUC. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be leaving for Washington this afternoon.

Mr. Stern: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the steady improvement in the employment prospects of YTS trainees on completing their courses? Does she agree that the success of this scheme is an indication of the major practical steps that the Government are taking to alleviate youth unemployment?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the scheme is a great success. I understand that now, on average, some 75 per cent. of leavers from YTS are either finding a job or going into further education. In some particular forms of training the figure is even higher. For example, in construction and hotel and catering, 90 per cent. are finding jobs straight away.

Mr. Alton: How does the Prime Minister reconcile her statement to the House that British service men were not used as guinea pigs during the atomic tests in the South Pacific in the early 1950s with the evidence given to the Australian Royal Commission that service men were made to lie in and run, walk and crawl through radioactive dust.

The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits until that commission has completed its work. I am sure he is pleased to know that we have done everything to assist its inquiry, releasing as many documents as we possibly call.

Mr. Terry Lewis: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lewis: When will the right hon. Lady come to the House with a serious proposition to alleviate the plight of pensioners with regard to heating? Will she take into account the new situation that has arisen over the last weekend, whereby poor families are now being exposed to the danger of hypothermia?

The Prime Minister: The scale of help with heating bills has increased considerably under this Government — by 40 per cent. more than the rise in fuel bills. Spending is now £400 million, of which £200 million goes to pensioner households. With regard to the particular case that the hon. Gentleman raised, I understand that the inquest into this tragic case will be held tomorrow, and until the result is known it would be wrong to comment.

Mr. Higgins: In her discussions with President Reagan, will my right hon. Friend stress the need for international contingency plans to deal with the possible short-term collapse of the dollar? From a strategic point of view, will she stress how absurd it would be for the strongest economy in the world to resort to protectionist measures?

The Prime Minister: We shall be putting the latter point very strongly. Such a move would affect the United States' traditional trading partners and it is also true that many developing countries need trade as much as they need aid. With regard to what would happen if there were a sudden collapse of the dollar, I believe, with my right hon. Friend, that the consequences could be very brutal if that happened and we shall, of course, be pointing that out.

Mr. Kinnock: With regard to the right hon. Lady's visit to the United States, I wish, first, to endorse yet again, and very firmly, the condemnation that she has again offered of the supply of arms to Northern Ireland as a result of funding from the United States of America.
Fourteen months ago, when the pound stood at £1·45 the right hon. Lady told us:
I would rather be in our position, which is sustainable, than in that of United States". — [Official Report, 8 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 462.]
As she changes her pounds for dollars today, is that still her view?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support—I had expected nothing else—on the Noraid matter. It will help me in my discussions in the United States of America to be able to say that all parts of the House are united on this matter.
On the right hon. Gentleman's latter point, having heard the previous question and answer, he should realise that I would still say yes. I think that we are in a much more sustainable position— [Interruption.] Clearly that goes down well in all parts of the House.

Mr. Kinnock: I am beginning to think that the right hon. Lady is not the President's No. 1 fan after all. In the 14 months since she made the statement that I quoted earlier, unemployment in the United States has gone down by 1·1 million while in Britain it has risen by 150,000; its industrial production has risen by more than 6 per cent. while ours has gone down by 1·3 per cent.; our interest rates have risen by 55 per cent. while those in the United


States have gone down by 10 per cent. If the right hon. Lady is a real fan, does she not realise that, in these matters at least, emulation might be the sincerest form of flattery?

The Prime Minister: President Reagan is fortunate in one respect — there is no danger of Socialism in America. Secondly, that country has never had the extent of nationalisation or regulation. Thirdly, there is an enterprise culture. Fourthly, America has never had the union problems with which we have had to deal.

Mr. Latham: When my right hon. Friend meets the President, will she stress that while there is very strong support within the House and country for the deployment of missiles in the United Kingdom to meet our NATO commitments, we nevertheless look forward to a constructive outcome of the disarmament negotiations in Geneva?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is our strength that has brought back the Soviet Union to the negotiating table. We are greatly indebted to Secretary Shultz for his excellent diplomatic skill in getting negotiations going again. We share my hon. Friend's wish for a reduction in the number of nuclear arms.

Mr. O'Brien: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the Prime Minister have regard to the problems facing many old people and widows throughout the country, but especially in the north of England, and give a commitment that heating allowances will be adequate to maintain warmth in homes? Will she take on board the example of people like Kathie Berrie, a widow in my constituency, who receives an additional 30p a day heating allowance to heat a three-bedroomed house? Will the right hon. Lady stop fudging the issue and provide heating allowances commensurate with the needs of the people?

The Prime Minister: This Government have not fudged the issue—they have provided 40 per cent. more for heating bills over and above inflation, more than any previous Government have done. That is a record of which we are very proud.

Mr. Freeman: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Freeman: When my right hon. Friend meets the President of the United States later today, will she commend the United States Administration for their effective intervention recently in the foreign exchange markets to stabilise the dollar? However, will she also respectfully remind him that the only permanent solution to the problem of the high dollar is to solve the American federal budget deficit?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, that intervention was pursuant to the Williamsburg agreement from the economic summit held at Williamsburg in 1983. It was also pursuant to the agreement reached between all G5 countries. It is there to make certain that speculators never know whether there will be an intervention, and therefore to help with preventing the resurgence of the

dollar as strongly as might otherwise happen. I agree that the deficit is a fundamental problem and I fully support the views of those in the Congress and the Administration who earnestly want to take action to reduce it.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind as she travels today with a message about Noraid that, in Northern Ireland today, many people are mourning the death of a brave prison officer who was brutally murdered on Sunday? Will she tell those who support the IRA that that is the result of their support? Will she bear in mind that many Roman Catholics are serving in the security forces at various levels and are paying the price for so doing?

The Prime Minister: I shall gladly convey that message with all the strength at my command. That was a particularly cruel and brutal murder, which should be a disgrace in any part of the world.

Mr. Fox: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fox: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the large majority in favour of the Second Reading of the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill? Does she agree that there is widespread public support for that measure and that the sooner it reaches the statute book, the better?

The Prime Minister: It is a significant Bill and a significant majority. The Government took a neutral position to enable the House, in the customary way in these matters, to express its view according to conscience. I believe that that was absolutely right.

Mr. Tony Banks: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Banks: As the Prime Minister goes to North America on her expenses-paid trip—[Interruption.] She is surely not paying for herself. When she reflects on her 10 years as Leader of the Conservative party, which of her Government's policies will she think is most to blame for the 3·5 million unemployed?

The Prime Minister: I really do not think that the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question warrants an answer. Everybody in the House who travels on duty or as a member of the Government justifiably travels on expenses, but the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I am staying the minimum amount of time. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I believe that we have been prepared to tackle fundamentally issues which other Governments have shirked.

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cartwright: What is the Prime Minister's assessment of the possibilities of a settlement of the pits dispute, following her discussions this morning?

The Prime Minister: We put out a brief statement after those talks, which it might be helpful for me to read to the hon Gentleman. It states:


The Prime Minister, accompanied by the Lord President and the Secretaries of State for Energy and Employment, met representatives of the TUC led by their General Secretary Mr. Norman Willis for one hour today. The TUC reported on their efforts to promote a settlement of the coal dispute. The Prime Minister expressed appreciation for the TUC's efforts. She said that a settlement was long overdue. The Prime Minister said that the views of the TUC would be conveyed to the National Coal Board by the Secretary of State for Energy. The Government wanted an early resolution of the strike but any agreement must deal clearly and unambiguously with the central point of the dispute.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. MacKay: When my right hon. Friend visits Washington, will she stress to the American people that the whole House condemns the IRA? Will she illustrate to those foolish Americans who fund Noraid that it leads to the murder of Irishmen by Irishmen, as was the case with Mr. Patrick Kerr who was savagely murdered in front of his children while going out of the Catholic cathedral this Sunday?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I shall try, once again, to do all of that. I shall try to do as much as I can to prevent

any money coining through Noraid. It is also important to stress that the IRA does not represent the Republic—indeed, the organisation is banned in the Republic—and that it is fundamentally against democracy.

Mr. Tom Clarke: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware that I would have been disappointed if my question had not been reached? In view of the talks that started today in Vienna, is she worried about the increase in the flow of arms to the middle east and about the fact that military expenditure is costing £300 per person in that region, which is three times as much as it costs in the rest of the world? Will she use her influence when she meets the President to ensure that stability is restored in that part of the world and that the flow of arms is reduced?

The Prime Minister: The middle east is one of the subjects that I must and will take up with the President. The occasions when an initiative can be taken are comparatively few. I believe that this is one of them and that it is the President's intention to take up the initiative that he announced in a famous speech in December 1982.

Rate Limitation

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will know that last Wednesday the Secretary of State for the Environment laid before the House the Rate Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Rates) Order, which seeks to prescribe the rate limits for 14 authorities. The order is due to be discussed by the Scrutiny Committee this afternoon and to be debated by the House tomorrow afternoon. We have just learnt—I appreciate the Secretary of State's courtesy in telling us this at the earliest possible moment—that the order is to be withdrawn, and a different order substituted for it. For the London borough of Haringey that will have the effect of replacing a rate limit which would have reduced the rate by 3 per cent. Or 7p, with an increase of 17 per cent. or 39p. Obviously that affects the borough of Haringey, but it also affects all other authorities. In a letter dated 30 January the Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham):
I have of course acted with consistency between authorities.
You will know that we have been deeply concerned that the Secretary of State has not produced the assumptions on which he claims to have acted consistently. Is it in order for the House to be expected to debate what amounts to an entirely fresh order at only 24 hours notice? Does the Leader of the House believe that that is in order? Should not the business be moved so that the House has a proper opportunity to digest the order before it debates it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me, but something which would normally be dealt with through the usual channels.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Biffen): I am happy to confirm that we wish to look at that through the usual channels.

BILL PRESENTED

ANIMAL WELFARE

Mr. Donald Coleman presented a Bill to improve the welfare of animals: And the same was read the first time; and ordered to be read a Second time tommorrow and to be printed. [Bill No. 90.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Ordered,
That the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Protection of National Energy Resources (Coal)

Mr. Kevin Barron: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that mines with workable reserves of coal are exploited until exhaustion.
One of the reasons why I wish to introduce the Bill is an answer given to me by the Secretary of State for Energy on 22 October 1984. He said of the National Coal Board:
The board has never moved from the basic suggestion that it is crazy to continue to invest money in something that is totally uneconomic when one can invest money in other collieries and coal faces, with good results for the industry." — [Official Report, 22 October 1984; Vol. 65, c. 452.]
That statement does not take account of all the considerations that it should do. The long-term effects of different Governments closing coal mines has and will have a major effect on our energy for years to come. To close collieries with workable reserves means that we shall lose that coal for ever. What is uneconomic today may be economic in 20 years. With the country's present energy resources, the House fails to realise that coal is and will be for the foreseeable future the major element of energy not just in this country, but in the world energy market.
Coal production cannot be easily stopped and restarted. The coal industry is an extractive industry. It is working a non-renewable asset for which at present there is little substitute for most major coal users. It is undoubtedly the fuel of the future.
I should like to read a small passage from a book called "Small is Beautiful" — words are often used by Conservative right hon. and hon. Members. Small shopkeepers in my constituency, however, have believed over the past 11 months that Conservative Members who use the theme "small is beautiful" are rather hypocritical. Shopkeepers and others in my area feel that they have been let down over the past 11 months.
The book's author, E. F. Schumacher, was economic adviser to the National Coal Board for more than 20 years. He is a well-read man and he has been quoted on many occasions on different issues by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The book starts with a statement from the working party report on the control of pollution that was given to the Secretary of State for the Environment in February 1972, when the Conservative party was in office.
It states:
There is a deep-seated unease revealed by the evidence sent to us about the future energy resources, both for this country and for the world as a whole. Assessments vary about the length of time that will elapse before fossil fuels are exhausted, but it is increasingly recognised that their life is limited and satisfactory alternatives must be found. The huge incipient needs of developing countries, the increases in population, the rate at which some sources of energy are being used up without much apparent thought of the consequences, the belief that future resources will be available only at ever-increasing cost and the hazards which nuclear power may bring in its train are all factors which contribute to the growing concern.
That passage was included in the document given to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Underneath, Schumacher wrote:
It is a pity that the 'growing concern' did not show itself in the 1960s, during which nearly half the British coal industry was abandoned as 'uneconomic' — and, once abandoned, it is virtually lost for ever — and it is astonishing that, despite `growing concern', there is continuing pressure from highly influential quarters to go on with pit closures for 'economic' reasons.


There is the same pressure for pit closures today. What we read in that chapter written in 1972 can be read in Britain in 1985. It was Schumacher's warning. It was wrong for Labour and Conservative Governments in the 1960s to run down the coal industry. The 1974 oil crisis showed everyone how wrong it was.
It is as wrong to run down the coal industry in the 1980s as it was in the 1960s. Great store is being laid by Conservative Members on the present prospects for coal development in fields such as Selby and Vale of Belvoir. Everyone knows that there is sufficient coal under Britain to last for about 300 years. Hon. Members do not accept, however, that the Vale of Belvoir and Selby are limited to about 50 years of mining. Those coalfields do not have the life of the collieries in which I worked whose shafts were sunk in 1908. The lifespan of the new coalfields is limited. We are not taking into account the likely demand for coal in this country and elsewhere in 50 years' time.
Conservative Members would like to see some of the new coalfields further developed. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) might like to see the Witham valley project developed so that he could have some miners in his constituency. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) might like to see some new coalfields developed in Oxfordshire because there is coal there. The Home Secretary might like to have some miners in his constituency of Richmond, Yorkshire, which has substantial coal reserves. I am sure that some miners would like to go to his surgery to discuss some aspects of his speeches during the past 11 months.
In a paper delivered to a study conference on Britain's coal in 1960 Schumacher said:
I suggest that the only principle that is defensible on grounds of long-term expediency as well as morality would be the principle that (within reasonable limits) all existing collieries will be worked until the coal is gone. I am, however, bound to add at once that this principle, derived from considerations of national interest, cannot be implemented by the coal industry without national support. To put it differently: I suggest that what is needed is a clear recognition of the principle of conservation. This principle, however, is not always compatible with the most profitable operation in free competition; it therefore needs to be supported by national policy.
Under my Bill, the coal industry would be examined rationally and we would seek reasonable limits for the contraction of the coal mining industry, taking account of all economic considerations — not just the short-term considerations of this Government or, for that matter, any other Government.
The House has not given serious thought to the potential for job losses in the coal mining industry. I intend in this Bill to do exactly that. This measure will protect the national interest, and rightly so. Subsidies are needed to protect the national interest. During the last year for which we have figures, £1·3 million of subsidies went into the coal industry. Not all that money was designed to keep open what are called "uneconomic" pits. The money went towards developing collieries that already existed and new coalfields that would be needed in the future. I believe that the same type of subsidy that applies to agriculture should be given to a major industry such as energy.
The Bill has major implications for the coal mining industry, but its prime aim is to make the Government more responsive to energy conservation and the sensible use of our national energy resources. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Andy Stewart: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the motion?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Speaker. 
I oppose the introduction of this Bill because, if I did not do so, it would be a dereliction of my duty to the people I represent. The Bill is a recipe for disaster for those who work in the coal industry and for the country generally. As a nation, providence has given us vast exploitable reserves of coal for 250 years at current extraction rates and men who have faced danger daily to dig that coal for others. We have not been given a union leader of vision and foresight to lead those men to prosperity by taking every available market opportunity. Only yesterday the greatly respected Lord Tonypandy said the same.
The Bill will finally convince those companies which were considering converting their oil and gas boilers to coal to do so knowing that for ever and a day the price of that coal would be charged at the level of inefficient production and market loss. Eighteen months ago, I and six hon. Friends met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board and pleaded with him to convert oil-fired power stations to coal. The CEGB does not keep its lights burning with promises; it requires a guarantee that coal will be delivered without fail. Scargill's actions, and this Bill, would finally kill any chance to convert those oil-fired power stations to coal. That would be another lost market. We have examples of potential markets requiring 5 million tonnes of coal and providing jobs for 10,000 miners. Markets, not Socialist dogma, keep pits open.
This Bill has a Sheffield Marxist hallmark stamped all over it. It demands, for the first time in the history of coal, that uneconomic pits must remain open until the last ounce of coal is extracted. It would give credence to the nuclear power lobby's argument that the coal industry is going into the sunset. This lobby has predicted that the upward graph of energy produced from nuclear power will cross the downward graph of that produced from coal-fired power stations 20 years sooner than would otherwise have been the case.
Socialist France ditched its coal industry in favour of nuclear power and reduced the number of its miners to 25,000 and now relies on nuclear power for 70 per cent. of its requirements. Has the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) heard that France produces electricity at 30 per cent. below the cost of ours? Let him ask the pensioners suffering from the cold weather, or the business men closing their factories because of energy costs being unproductive, about it. I shall not stand idly by and watch my constituents' jobs being given to the nuclear industry on a plate.
Betrayal by others will never be forgotten or forgiven. The coal industry cannot fight back, let alone survive, while handcuffed to Scargill's demands. Why did he not have a ballot? The hon. Member for Rother Valley wants a compulsory ballot for everybody—that is what he said last week.
Given freedom to manage the industry with continued investment in viable pits, we can beat the opposition. The hon. Member for Rother Valley asked for our support to keep the loss-making pits in production at taxpayers'


expense, because, he says, it would be cheaper than reopening mines at a later date. Is he so removed from the industry that he has not heard of underground gasification, which will soon remove those last deposits without men going underground?
If the Bill is passed into law, it will be known as the Scargill Act—the Scargill Act of Lunacy—which would mean the working of every pit to exhaustion, whatever the cost. This Scargill Act, which has already been rejected by men such as Jimmy Reid, Lord Wilson and Lord Chapple, would be the death penalty for the coal industry. No one who cares about this great industry could contemplate such an act of folly. I ask right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to reject the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 259.

Division No. 112]
[3.50 pm


AYES


Anderson, Donald
Flannery, Martin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foster, Derek


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Garrett, W. E.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Golding, John


Barron, Kevin
Gould, Bryan


Bell, Stuart
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter


Blair, Anthony
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Boyes, Roland
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
John, Brynmor


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clarke, Thomas
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clay, Robert
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lambie, David


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Lamond, James


Coleman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Leighton, Ronald


Cowans, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Craigen, J. M.
Litherland, Robert


Crowther, Stan
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunningham, Dr John
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Edward


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McCartney, Hugh


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Deakins, Eric
McGuire, Michael


Dixon, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William


Dormand, Jack
Madden, Max


Douglas, Dick
Marek, Dr John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Eadie, Alex
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Maynard, Miss Joan


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Michie, William


Ellis, Raymond
Mikardo, Ian


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ewing, Harry
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fisher, Mark
Nellist, David





O'Brien, William
Smith, (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Park, George
Snape, Peter


Parry, Robert
Soley, Clive


Patchett, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Pavitt, Laurie
Stott, Roger


Pike, Peter
Strang, Gavin


Prescott, John
Straw, Jack


Radice, Giles
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Randall, Stuart
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Redmond, M.
Wainwright, R.


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wareing, Robert


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Welsh, Michael


Robertson, George
Wilson, Gordon


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Woodall, Alec


Sedgemore, Brian



Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Mr. Terry Lewis and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Ron Davies.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Robert


Alton, David
Durant, Tony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dykes, Hugh


Ancram, Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Ashdown, Paddy
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Evennett, David


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fallon, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Farr, Sir John


Beith, A. J.
Favell, Anthony


Bellingham, Henry
Fletcher, Alexander


Best, Keith
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forman, Nigel


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blackburn, John
Forth, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Marcus


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Franks, Cecil


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Freeman, Roger


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gale, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Galley, Roy


Bright, Graham
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Browne, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bruinvels, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gorst, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gow, Ian


Budgen, Nick
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bulmer, Esmond
Grant, Sir Anthony


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grist, Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Ground, Patrick


Cartwright, John
Grylls, Michael


Cash, William
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hampson, Dr Keith


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hanley, Jeremy


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Chope, Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayes, J.


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clegg, Sir Walter
Heddle, John


Cockeram, Eric
Henderson, Barry


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hind, Kenneth


Cope, John
Holt, Richard


Corrie, John
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cranborne, Viscount
Howells, Geraint


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Dicks, Terry
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dorrell, Stephen
Irving, Charles


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jackson, Robert






Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Jessel, Toby
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powley, John


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Raffan, Keith


Key, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Renton, Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhodes James, Robert


Kirkwood, Archy
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knowles, Michael
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Knox, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter


Lang, Ian
Rowe, Andrew


Latham, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lawler, Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Scott, Nicholas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Silvester, Fred


Lightbown, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lilley, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Speed, Keith


Luce, Richard
Speller, Tony


Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacGregor, John
Squire, Robin


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stanley, John


Maclean, David John
Steel, Rt Hon David


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Madel, David
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Major, John
Stokes, John


Malone, Gerald
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maples, John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Marlow, Antony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mates, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mather, Carol
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thornton, Malcolm


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thurnham, Peter


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mellor, David
Tracey, Richard


Merchant, Piers
Trippier, David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Waddington, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Monro, Sir Hector
Waldegrave, Hon William


Moore, John
Walden, George


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Moynihan, Hon C.
Waller, Gary


Murphy, Christopher
Ward, John


Neale, Gerrard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Needham, Richard
Watson, John


Nelson, Anthony
Watts, John


Neubert, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Newton, Tony
Whitney, Raymond


Nicholls, Patrick
Wilkinson, John


Normanton, Tom
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Onslow, Cranley
Winterton, Nicholas


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wood, Timothy


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Pawsey, James



Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tellers for the Noes:


Penhaligon, David
Mr. John Hannam and


Pollock, Alexander
Mr. Andy Stewart.


Portillo, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — London Regional Transport (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House has already had an opportunity to debate the purpose of the Bill, on 7 February, when I moved the Ways and Means resolution under which it was introduced. At that time I gave a full explanation of why the measure was needed and of the justification for it. Inevitably we shall be going over much of the same ground in this debate and, no doubt, in future debates on the same subject. No doubt there will be the usual crop of adjectives from the official Opposition which we heard in the Ways and Means debate.
I must return to the substance of the matter because that is what the House should consider. As the House knows, a court judgment went against us, as a result of which £50 million is in dispute. If we did not bring this Bill forward now and if the money remained with the Greater London council, the money would have to be found either from London Regional Transport's passengers or from the ratepayers in future years. I wonder whether that is really what the Opposition want.
No one in the Ways and Means debate felt sufficiently confident to claim that the GLC would use that £50 million to reduce the rates. It would probably go to Capital, TRAFIC, the public transport campaign unit or another of those propaganda fronts that the GLC sets up and funds. Is that what the Opposition want—that the ratepayers should pay twice to fund the GLC's policies? Whatever may be the answer of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the central point is that where that £50 million goes must be a policy decision for the House.
It is not for the courts to determine how much grant should be paid by the GLC, nor have the courts presumed to do so. That is a matter of policy and it is right that the Government, with the approval of Parliament, should determine it. It would not have helped LRT or the GLC if we had gone through the process of appeal, only to end up without the correct amount having to be paid and facing further legal disputes and uncertainty. After studying the High Court's interpretation of the existing statutory provision in section 49 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984, I concluded that the risks of that happening were too great. I have brought this measure before the House so that the House itself may decide.
I want to stress the need to end the uncertainty which the GLC and, incidentally, LRT face as a result of the High Court decision on 11 January, which put into limbo the amount of grants which the GLC should pay to LRT for 1984–85. Unless this matter is resolved quickly and beyond doubt, the GLC's annual budgeting and rate precepting processes will have to proceed without the GLC knowing for certain what the payments to LRT for this financial year will be. LRT also needs a firm basis on which to plan ahead for 1985–86 and beyond.
The GLC now has a firm basis on which to plan for its 1986–85 budget and rate precepting. It knows the details of my right hon. Friend's rate-capping order; and it knows the amount specified in this Bill, which, subject to the agreement of Parliament, it will have to pay over to LRT. It can now make its rate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On the issue of certainty, can the Secretary of State tell us whether he accepts that the courts are traditionally acknowledged as making certain decisions, but, more important, whether he has any information that the Court of Appeal or, if necessary, the House of Lords could have decided this matter more quickly than Parliament by passing new legislation? Surely that would have been a much more certain and normal way to proceed.

Mr. Ridley: As a result of the High Court judgment there is no direction in place; there is no order of any sort. Nor did the court seek to say what the sum of money paid should be, nor substitute its own direction for one that it quashed. Whether we rely on the High Court or go to appeal or even to the very top, it does not mean that a direction will be made. What it means is that any direction that may be made may or may not be challenged or may or may not be upheld, so there is no certainty at the end of the entire legal process that there would be a direction in place that would be valid.

Mr. Tony Banks: If the Secretary of State was prepared to abide by the undertaking that he gave in Committee when we were discussing section 49 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984, he could make a revised direction to the GLC which would be legally binding upon the GLC. The only thing which he could not do and which he is seeking to do in this Bill is to create an operating surplus for London Regional Transport. That is something that he said specifically he would not do. If he gave up the surplus that is unnecessary for LRT's revenue and operating needs, he could make another direction which would be legally binding. Why does he not do that?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He did not hear either speech that I made on the Ways and Means resolution. He appeared, made a speech and left without listening to the other side of the argument. If he wishes to enlighten himself, I suggest that he reads the argument in Hansard.
Whatever the court may decide, or on appeal the Appeal Court may decide, it does not alter the fact that the House has a right and a duty to make sure that its intentions to take from the GLC the correct amount are implemented. If section 49 is defective—and I accept that it is—I have to give the House an alternative way of proceeding which is the only way open to the Government if they are to effect their policy to implement what I told the Committee on the London Regional Transport Act.
When the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) interrupted me, I was talking about the uncertainty. I emphasise the phrase I used—subject to the agreement of Parliament—because the GLC cannot be certain that Parliament will approve the Bill in the form that I have presented it. In order to give the earliest possible element of certainty to the GLC and

to LRT, the Government propose that the progress of the Bill be expedited. The House will have seen the motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the House proposing that the remaining stages be taken on Thursday. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that, whatever they may think about the contents of the Bill, it is right to decide the issue as quickly as possible.
May I say in passing that the GLC rate will not include any element of funding for the GLC for next year and that it is misleading for the GLC to suggest that ratepayers will be paying twice for public transport. In December 1983 the GLC transferred £300 million of housing debt to London Transport solely in order for the GLC to claim that Londoners would have to pay £69 million in interest on this debt, on behalf of LRT, through its GLC rate in future. London Transport capital has previously always been provided by means of grant on a pay-as-you-go basis, so this is a doubly mischievous and deceptive device.
The cost to London's ratepayers of supporting LRT is indeed down next year by some £50 million. London ratepayers will, with this Bill, be paying less for LRT than last year. However, the GLC's rate-cap is at about the same level as its precept for this year because it chose to spend £200 million of reserves last year, enabling it to hold down its rate for 1984–85, which is why it has to put up the rate so much next year. This, again, is another deliberate device to whitewash the GLC's extravagance.
I shall now repeat briefly how the sum of £258,179,588 specified in the Bill was derived and why it is reasonable for all the parties concerned — passengers, ratepayers and the GLC. I have already given the House a full explanation in the Ways and Means debate, so I shall not repeat it all.
Section 49 of the London Regional Transport Act empowered me to direct the GLC to pay up to £360 million in grants to LRT, deducting any grants already paid by the GLC in respect of 1984–85 before 29 June, when the Government took over responsibility for LRT. When I made my direction under section 49, my information was that the GLC had already paid £78·7 million up to 29 June of last year, which reduced the amount which it could be required to pay for the rest of 1984–85 to £281·3 million; that is, the £360 million less what had been paid.
I directed the GLC to pay that amount. LRT was then forecasting a small deficit for the year, after grants. It seemed clear that it would need the full amount of grants for which the GLC had budgeted and precepted.
After I made the direction, it became clear that some £10·2 million of payments by the GLC in the period before 29 June had been made in respect of 1984–85, not 1983–84 as LT had requested at the time. As I explained to the House, LT had asked the GLC to pay £10·2 million in grants to settle the position for the financial year 1983–84. The GLC duly made the payments, but insisted on labelling them as payments for 1984–85.
In deriving the sum of grant specified in the Bill, I have decided to deduct those payments, which amount precisely to £10,220,412. LRT will have to absorb that reduction in grant. I believe that the GLC should have settled up for 1983–84, but I accept that it would go beyond the Government's original intentions to require it now to do so, and I did not seek to recover that sum of money through the direction when the matter went before the court.

Mr. Tony Banks: The GLC did not give the grant for 1983–84 of £10·2 million, on the ground that London


Transport did not need it. The whole point of precepting and then paying for services is that the council pays only for the services that are required, and LT did not need that money. As I say, that is why it was not paid.

Mr. Ridley: My information is different. It is that London Transport asked for the money, which it needed towards the end of March. The GLC, instead of paying it, although it had it, deliberately held it over until the new financial year for the express purpose of labelling it as 1984–85 money so that it could get out of having to pay it under section 49.

Mr. Tony Banks: It was not needed.

Mr. Ridley: It was needed, and if the hon. Gentleman asks London Transport I think he will find that it was considerably inconvenienced by having to stand out of that money simply so that that clever dodge could be employed to keep it out of the relevant financial year.
As well as that deduction of £10·2 million, I made a further deduction of £12·9 million from the sum specified in the original direction, and I will explain the basis of that figure. At the time I made the direction, the GLC's money Bill for 1984–85 was being considered by the House. The House had passed an instruction to the Standing Committee considering the Bill which invited the GLC to come forward with proposals to reduce its capital expenditure provisions, failing which the Committee was to make reductions of just under 7·5 per cent. across the board.
The GLC did not take account of the direction which I made concerning LRT by bringing forward proposals, with the consequence that, after I had made the direction under section 49, the money Bill provision for LRT was reduced by some 7·5 per cent. The money Bill has recently been enacted in that form and I have, therefore, deducted £12·9 million from the sum which the GLC was originally required to pay to LRT.
Compared with the section 49 direction, therefore, this Bill reduces the requirement for grants from the GLC by some £23·1 million, £12·9 million in respect of the money Act reduction and just over £10·2 million in respect of the additional payments made at the beginning of 1984–85.
The question which the House must decide — as I said, it is not an appropriate decision to ask the courts to make — is whether the residual amount of grant — the £258·2 million specified in the Bill — is reasonable in relation to LRT's requirements. I am sure that the principle that we should adopt—the one I gave in Committee—is that LRT should not be left with a cash deficit or with unfunded liabilities. Indeed, I said in Committee that we should not take more from the GLC than was needed by LRT. The exact phrase I used was quoted often by myself and others in the Ways and Means debate.
The sum of £258·2 million roughly achieves just that. It will leave a cash surplus of some £30 million at the end of the year. But LRT has liabilities of £21 million for voluntary redundancies and a further £15 million for other unfunded liabilities. Thus, the £285 million is certainly not more than LRT needs to balance its books this year.
LRT also needs a reserve to pay off the cost of the buses which the GLC suddenly decided to lease; £20·8 million is included in the sum in the Bill for that purpose. Without it, LRT's needs would most certainly not be met.
I have explained fully the substance of clause 1(1) of the Bill. I will now briefly explain subsections (2) and (3).

Subsection (2) provides for the phasing of payments by the GLC. Its intention is to avoid requiring the GLC to pay money to LRT in advance of when it would have had to do so under the section 49 direction.
It allows for two possibilities. If Royal Assent is received before 25 March, the first instalment of grant is payable on the day following Royal Assent. That instalment is the amount which would have been due under the section 49 direction by 25 February, less the two sums of £10·2 million and £12·9 million now conceded to the GLC. A second instalment will then fall due on 29 March and under the section 49 direction this was divided into two payments, due on 25 and 29 March.
Subsection (2) also provides for the possibility that Royal Assent may not be obtained until 25 March or later, in which case the entire sum of grant due under the Bill will be payable on the day following Royal Assent.
Subsection (3) simply provides that interest will be payable if the grant is not paid on time. This simply revises the provision for interest payments in section 49(5) of the London Regional Transport Act to take account of the provisions of this Bill.
Under our control, LRT's revenue position has improved, thanks to better than expected sales of Travelcards, increased tourism in London and the fares increase on 6 January. Also, LRT's management has been able to bring forward cost savings as part of its drive to improve efficiency and value for money.
On the other side of the balance sheet, LRT will have to absorb the £23 million reduction in grants—the £10·2 million and the £12·9 million which I have explained. It has also incurred substantial liabilities; for example, voluntary severance payments which are a direct short-term consequence of its action to reduce costs.
It is unreasonable for the GLC to say that it should pay less grant on account of the cost savings but should not have to cover the related liabilities which will show in LRT's accounts for 1984–85. As with the leasing reserve, if those liabilities are not covered by grant this year, they will fall as a burden on passengers and ratepayers in the future.
Hon. Members should bear in mind that LRT has a turnover of about £1 billion. Even if it got its forecast right to within 2 per cent., it could still be £20 million adrift one way or the other. With that qualification in mind, I am satisfied on the basis of LRT's latest forecast, that the sum of grant specified in the Bill will just about be enough to meet LRT's needs for 1984–85, including its accrued liabilities. Taking account of all the considerations which I have outlined, I believe that the proposal now before the House is fair and reasonable as between the parties concerned.
How can it be wrong to insist that money paid by the ratepayer for LRT should be given to LRT, especially when it is needed? If the Bill were not passed, and if the money stayed with the GLC, that money would have to be found again from London passengers or London ratepayers. Furthermore, section 49 of the London Regional Transport Act turned out to mean something different from what the House expected. I am sure that the House would agree with me that we should give effect to the Government's intentions as explained to Parliament during the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman heard me explaining exactly what I thought section 49 would mean. I confess that I gave him the wrong explanation, and I am perfectly prepared to admit that. Having done that, I would expect him to be the first to want me to bring the Bill before the House in order to put matters right.

Mr. Banks: May I point out to the Secretary of State yet again that he said in Committee on 15 March that it was not his intention to create a surplus? The reason why Mr. Justice McNeill found him to have acted illegally was that he set out to create a surplus which reversed the undertaking that he gave in Committee. It is not section 49 that has changed; it is the Secretary of State.

Mr. Ridley: I have extremely bad luck with the hon. Gentleman. I covered that point at some length some minutes ago, and again he was not in his place. On three occasions I have answered the point which he continues to make. It would be much easier if he took the trouble to listen to what I say. If he did, he would not make the point ever again, because it is a totally bogus one.
We have the interests of the ratepayer and the taxpayer at heart.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when it comes down to it, this is an argument about whether money that has been allocated to LRT should be paid to LRT or whether, when there is an alternative to be funded, such as the GLC, it should be paid to that other body? The objective of the Opposition is to give the funding to the GLC to use for whatever purpose it wants rather than for the specific purpose of funding LRT. In fact, Opposition Members are disagreeing with what they claimed in Committee, which was that they had the interests of LRT passengers at heart. They do not. They have the interests of the GLC at heart. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the basic reason why Opposition Members are upset is that LRT, since it has been funded, is more successful, more profitable, more efficient and more popular than they ever hoped or prayed for?

Mr. Ridley: The debate is concerned with one thing only: should £50 million which was taken from London's ratepayers to assist LRT be taken from them a second time so that the GLC can make a windfall profit of £50 million? That is the crux. If any hon. Gentlemen dared to vote against the Bill, they would be branding themselves as people who thought that it was right to raise £50 million from London's ratepayers to be spent by the GLC on something else, and then to raise another £50 million and soak the ratepayers twice. If any hon. Members believe that, I think that they will be most unpopular with London. That is why I commend the Bill to the House.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I enjoy listening the the Secretary of State because his speeches have an endearing imaginative quality: they bear appallingly little relation to the truth.
I should like to remind the House of what has happened in relation to the Bill. Once upon a time there was a Secretary of State who decided that he would create an unelected quango called London Regional Transport. He decided that, in order to do that, he would have to take control of it away from the elected body. He therefore brought before the House, because he has a large majority,

a Bill which he thought would enable him to do exactly what he liked. He took the Bill into Committee. He explained that what he was asking the GLC to do was simply to pay the amount of money that was owed to LRT because the change was to come about in the middle of a financial year. He said—and we are getting to the point at which we can almost quote it in chorus—that it was not his intention to take more through the clause—the now famous section 49—than was strictly necessary for running LRT for the year in question so that we should not end up with a surplus.
Unfortunately, however, things then began to go wrong. Without any consultation with the GLC, the Secretary of State when he took over pushed ahead with demanding a sum of money. The GLC told him at the time that it was not in agreement with the figures that he presented. It pointed out to him that it had not been consulted and that it was going to appeal against his decision. The GLC took the Secretary of State to law.
What happened when the Secretary of State found himself in the law courts? He was not, as he may have given the House the impression today, being asked to hand over his responsibilities to a judge so that the judge could decide the amount of money. The GLC was claiming that he was asking for sums to which he was not entitled. The GLC made it quite clear that the Secretary of State was asking for a great deal of money that was not his legal right, and the court found for the GLC.
I remind the House of that judgment because it seems to have got lost in the suggestion that all the Government are doing is putting right a little mistake that was made by the parliamentary draftsman. They are doing nothing of the sort. We are being asked to enact legislation that is retrospective, because a court of law found that the Secretary of State had acted
unlawfully, irrationally and procedurally improperly in giving a direction which exceeded his statutory powers without consideration of all relevant material and without consultation with the Greater London Council.
I remind the House of what happened next. Four times at the Dispatch Box the Secretary of State said that we could not discuss the matter because it was sub judice and he intended to appeal. Four times he sought to mislead the House, and on four separate occasions he was wrong, because he had no intention of appealing. Indeed, he did not appeal against the judgment which was so damning that many Ministers in any Government but the present one would have felt obliged to resign, but, oh, no, not the Secretary of State—he was not worried by these minor problems.
He then decided that he would present another Bill. Even after the debacle of the legal decision that has handed down against him, he had the power to come to the House with a direction and to put the matter right, but that was not good enough for him. He is not prepared to accept that he was wrong. He simply comes back to the House with another Bill saying in effect that, if he did not get it right the first time, he is going to change the rules so that he gets it right the second time. The House should understand the extent of that, dare one say it, arrogance. The Secretary of State would somehow have us believe today that all he is doing is putting right a small piece of creative accounting.
The Secretary of State told us about the GLC and the way in which it deliberately fixed the books. He suggested that he had to present the Bill to the House to put right the


mistake that he had made because the GLC, by moving amounts of money from one head to another, had managed to change the payments that were due to LRT. The reality is that the GLC, on the basis of providing a service to the customer, has always paid for the operating needs of London Transport. Now it is being asked to do something very different.
Will the Secretary of State tell us whether it is true that LRT made it clear to him that if it went ahead with the famous Travelcard that he is very fond of and tells us about on every possible occasion, it might find itself in considerable difficulty because of the implications of the integration of its services with those of British Rail? Did not LRT tell him that if he insisted on going ahead—because there could be large fare increases for some passengers—LRT would demand a quid pro quo by way of a considerable amount of extra money not only to "deal with voluntary redundancies", as the Secretary of State says, but to make up for costs that it expects in the coming year? Therefore, it is not a question of the Secretary of State providing some marvellously efficient new service. Having told the House of Commons that he had no intention of trying to take extra sums of money to build up surplus funds, the Secretary of State is now bringing forward new legislation that will do precisely that.
We should make it clear to the ratepayers of London that they may not be getting the bargain that, somehow or other, the Secretary of State would have them believe. Most ratepayers are quite capable of understanding that if the GLC gets the money back into the coffers, it will do one of two things — either lower the rates or provide better services. The Secretary of State has just told us at great length that last year the GLC used its own reserves to keep the rates down. I did not say that — the Secretary of State did. Presumably the GLC did that because it was conscious of the need to think about the proper rate that it would levy on the people of London. However, we are now being told that the GLC cannot be given back that amount of money—it cannot be given extra cash because it would spend it not on the ratepayers but on some other, unspecified, subject.
Today the Secretary of State is perpetuating in the House of Commons his nasty, shabby little battle in his war of attrition against the GLC. I think that he misled the House not once but several times. He came here saying that the spare cash that the LRT did not need during the year could go back to the ratepayers in reduced GLC precept, but now he has changed his mind and is bringing forward a Bill that would make that quite impossible.
What we have here is a bit of legislation of which any Secretary of State should be ashamed. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed because there are few people who can have been hauled before a court of law and told that they have behaved disgracefully. He should be ashamed because he has not accepted that judgment but just come back to the House with another Bill trying to make good the mistake that he made in the first instance. He should be ashamed because, like so many in the present Government, when he has done something wrong, does he come back to the House and apologise? No, he does not. Has there been a hint or a suggestion from the Secretary of State that somehow or other he was to blame for the mess that he has got himself into? No; the Secretary of State comes here and says, "Right. I asked the GLC—in fact, I told the GLC—how much money I wanted. I did not consult it or concern myself with the needs of the

ratepayers of London. In fact, now I shall have to put on an extra levy because of that. What I have done is create a situation that means that the only way that I can get out of the nasty little corner that I have painted myself into is to bring before the House of Commons a Bill that is retrospective in intent." It is a shabby little manoeuvre. It is an embarrasing little manoeuvre. I am appalled that the Secretary of State will use his enormous majority to push through something of which anyone should be ashamed.

Mr. Tim Eggar: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) rightly referred to the enormous majority that we in the Conservative party will have for the Bill. I remind her that it is not only an enormous majority in the country as a whole or in the House, but an enormous majority that the Conservative party received for the abolition of the GLC in the 1983 general election. It is the enormous majority that Londoners gave us as representatives of London. There are far more Conservative Members representing London constituencies than Opposition Members.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was outraged about the Bill, but where are all her supporters? All three of them are stuck up at the back of the Chamber, almost trying to separate themselves from her. It is fascinating. There they are, lurking at the back underneath the clock, afraid to be associated with her. The verdict will be given tonight by the House of Commons, but it has been given already by the people at the general election. The hon. Lady knows that well.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that measure was put into the manifesto only about six weeks before polling day, and received little notice throughout London? The hon. Gentleman also referred to the three hon. Members sitting under the clock, as he put it. Does he agree that that is our customary place in the House?

Mr. Eggar: I understand why the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, does not wish to be associated too directly with his Front Bench. He has always been an independent-minded Member, and would not want to come too close to the influence of the Front Bench. He referred to the Conservative party manifesto at the election. I had always understood that the hon. Gentleman was on the Left of his party— [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend does not seem to agree with that observation. I am sorry to cause dissension between two hon. Members from the same borough. That measure was clearly in our manifesto. It is a manifesto commitment that we have carried out.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Eggar: I am sorry, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make a speech in his own time, and I do not want to detain the House for too long.
Why are we discussing LRT and the Bill? The reason is, of course, that it was necessary in the last Parliament for us to make the change from London Transport to London Regional Transport. Why? The reason is simple. One has only to look at the record of London Transport over the 12 years before the Act came into operation to see it. Passengers were down by 25 per cent.; there were real increases in bus costs, which went up 67 per cent.;


underground costs increased by 48 per cent.; and subsidies that in 1970 were £6·5 million were about £379 million in 1982. It is a poor record by any standards.
It was right that, having made the changeover to LRT, the Government should place importance on improving the efficiency of LRT. That is why I particularly welcome the Government's decision to reduce the revenue subsidies to LRT while at the same time rightly increasing the capital subsidies. After all, it is investment that we need within the London network.
I particularly welcome the impetus that the Act gave to co-operation between British Rail and LRT. Many of my constituents have benefited from the Capitalcard and the improved communication that it gives to where many of them work at the centre of London.
However, let me refer to the precise terms of the Bill. It was quite clear—as anyone reading the Committee reports must realise—what the Secretary of State was trying to do in this Bill. But as my right hon. Friend has said, section 49 was incorrectly drafted. There is no dispute about the fact that the intention of the Secretary of State as expressed in Committee had not been put into legal form in the terms of section 49. Therefore, it is not at all unreasonable that the Secretary of State, having had a clear majority in Committee and on Second and Third Readings of the Bill, should say that the intention to which he gave expression in Committee had not been put in correct legal form and that he was coming back to the House to clarify the position.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that she was disturbed that there had been no consultation. Obviously, she has had her head in the sand for a very long time. I know that she is not a London Member so perhaps she can be forgiven, but she is clearly not aware that the GLC has had a policy of non-co-operation with the Government ever since these measures were introduced. To accuse the Government of refusing to consult when the GLC has instructed its officers on almost every occasion to refuse to give information to departmental officials is to mislead the House.

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose—

Mr. Eggar: Of course I will give way to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I thought the hon. Gentleman might, particularly in view of the difficulty he is having in addressing himself to the Bill. I would point out to him that a court of law found that the Secretary of State had not consulted and had gone beyond his powers. It was not the Opposition; it was a court of law. He might like to address himself to that point.

Mr. Eggar: rose—

Mr. Ridley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Eggar: Of course.

Mr. Ridley: There is nothing in section 49 of the London Regional Transport Act which requires consultation with the GLC over the making of the section 49 directive. The court confirmed that the GLC had no statutory right to consultation.

Mr. Eggar: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for correcting the hon. Lady. The hon. Lady does not realise that what has been happening in London over the past two

to three years has been a deliberate attempt by a small Labour majority on the GLC to frustrate the work of central Government, democratically elected in 1983, on a plan to abolish the GLC. I know that the hon. Lady is not a London Member and does not bear direct responsibility but I think it extremely serious that the Labour party should support — nay, instruct — officers in local government to take on central Government and not to cooperate in the time-honoured fashion always followed previously, when local government officers have accepted that they should co-operate with a democratically elected central Government.
I shall be delighted to give way to the hon. Lady if she will explain why the Labour party has gone along with the Left-wing antics of Ken Livingstone, and so on, in forcing officers to take up a political stance.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not want to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman. I should be happy to make another speech altogether. However, let me point out to the hon. Gentleman, since he does not seem to have it right, that there could have been consultation with the GLC had the Secretary of State made the slightest attempt to ask for it. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that it was the judge, not the Opposition, who said that the Secretary of State had not consulted. We are looking at this Bill only because the judge said that the Secretary of State failed to consult.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Lady misses the point again. There is no obligation to consult under the terms of section 49. Furthermore, the Secretary of State and all London Members on both sides of the House know very well that when the Government attempt to consult on any matters with the GLC, the response is a policy of complete non-co-operation. Even if there had been an obligation under the terms of section 49, what would have happened? There would have been a complete stone-wall, and no information would have been provided by the GLC, the officers of which are under strict political instructions from Ken Livingstone and his mob.
The subsidy which the ratepayers paid, the £50 million, some of which was paid by my constituents, should have gone directly to London transport to subsidise its operators. That is what my constituents thought they were paying for. They would bitterly attack me if they saw any of that £50 million disappearing to support the women's committee, the police committee and other exercises run by the GLC to squander ratepayers' money. My constituents endorse my support for the Bill.

Mr. John Cartwright: I propose to be brief because, although the figures in our discussion may be complicated, the principles are very clear. I shall begin, as many other hon. Members have, with the question of the legal judgment. It is a fact, no matter what we say in our discussions across the Floor of this Chamber, that on 29 June, only three days after the Royal Assent was given to the London Regional Transport Act, the Secretary of State directed the GLC to pay London Regional Transport £281·3 million. That was under section 49 of the Act, and there is no dispute between us that he did that without consultation with the GLC.
The terms of the famous judgment by Mr. Justice McNeill in January 1985 were not quite as mild as the hon.


Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) said. What Mr. Justice McNeill said was that the Secretary of State had acted
unlawfully, irrationally and procedurally improperly in giving a direction which exceeded his statutory powers without consideration of all relevant material and without consultation with the Greater London Council.
The hon. Member for Enfield, North may have a very fair point when he says that the GLC was pledged to a policy of non-co-operation with the Government and that if the Secretary of State had sought to consult it he might have got a dusty answer. The fact is that we simply do not know, because he did not consult. From my point of view, and from that of many reasonable people, had the Secretary of State sought to consult the GLC to obtain all the detailed information it had available and had been refused, he would be in a very much stronger position than he is today.

Mr. Roger Stott: I am advised that, in case the Secretary of State had decided to consult the GLC, the GLC had already got a draft letter prepared in response to the consultations that the Secretary of State should have undertaken. The fact is that he did not, and it is absurd and untrue for the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) to come out with the remarks he has just made about the GLC not co-operating in this matter.

Mr. Cartwright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us that information, to which, of course, I am not privy, and I do not for one moment dispute it. However, even if it were not the case, the point I am making is that the Secretary of State, as far as we understand the matter, did not seek to discover whether or not the GLC was prepared to co-operate. He did not even make the initial approach to see whether it would provide the information. That is why, I assume, the judge — whatever is contained in section 49—made the comment he did, to the effect that one of the reasons why the direction was faulty was that it had been made without any attempt to consult the Greater London council.
The second thing that brings me down against this Bill is the question about its necessity. Clearly, the terms of the judgment require the Secretary of State to issue a direction to the GLC requiring it to pay sufficient grants to London Regional Transport to enable it to meet its operating needs in 1984–85. I do not wish to repeat the commitment from the Standing Committee debates on the London Regional Transport Bill, which has dominated this debate and previous debates on this issue, but it is clear that the Secretary of State gave an absolute undertaking that it was not his intention that London Regional Transport should end up with a surplus as a result of the sums of money that the GLC was to be directed to pay to it. Yet, from all the evidence available to us it seems clear that that is what will happen. Some £50 million will be surplus to LRT's operating needs in 1984–85 and will therefore go into reserves.
Conservative Members argue that it would have been quite wrong if that £50 million had been left in the hands of the GLC because it would have been used for other purposes. But, however the GLC had used that money, the ratepayers who contributed to it through the rates would have had some benefit. I do not necessarily dispute the argument of the hon. Member for Enfield, North that that money might have been spent unwisely. I will not defend the spending policies of the GLC—I disagree with many

of them. I might have been opposed to the way in which it spent the £50 million, but that is not the issue. One of the problems of our democracy is that we have governments and local authorities for which we do not care. If they are democratically elected, we must accept that they have power to levy and spend rates. If that £50 million had not been used in the GLC's normal spending pattern, it would have been available to offset the rate levy in 1985–86.
When Conservative Members argue that it would be improper for the GLC to obtain that money on the understanding that it would be spent on the London regional transport system and then to spend it on other services, it shows that those hon. Members have never been involved in local government. It is not unusual in local government to make the best possible estimate at the time that the budget is produced and to raise a rate on the basis of spending estimates, and then to find that during the course of the year situations vary and money is switched from one vote or one service to another. If the GLC has the use of £50 million originally raised for London regional transport purposes there is nothing improper in using it for another purpose in the interests of Londoners.
Like many hon. Members, I have considerable objection to the retrospective element of the Bill. It retrospectively requires the GLC to pay a sum that would have been unlawful under the legislation as it now stands. The Bill goes well beyond the original intention of section 49 of the Act.
I find unacceptable the suggestion that the Bill is only a marginal tidying up on the edges; a clarification of a piece of the original Bill that was not wholly clear. As I read the judgment, it was not concerned mainly with interpretation of section 49 — it was directed at the Secretary of State's action in setting a direction under section 49. The judge found that the Secretary of State did not have his facts correct, that he had not taken account of all the relevant available information and that he had failed to consult the GLC as the appropriate authority.
We are dealing not with a tidying-up measure — a correction of bad drafting in the original legislation — but with an attempt by the Secretary of State to avoid the consequences of his action in administering his law. I regard the Bill as a shabby, shady and hole-in-the-corner measure, which I shall have great pleasure in voting against tonight.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We should at once stamp upon the false impression given by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) about the proposals before us. They are not retrospective; they apply to the tax year ending April 1985 and to a levy on the current tax year. Therefore, it is nonsense to talk about the legislation as being retrospective when it refers to something current.
I see the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and Leyton (Mr. Cohen) in their places. I became immensely familiar with their faces when we sat through hours and hours of discussion on the original Bill a year ago. It is a great pleasure to see them in the Chamber today. They will no doubt join in the debate and reiterate the arguments that they put in Committee. For the benefit of those who were not members of the Committee, such as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs.


Dunwoody) who has unfortunately left the Chamber, I shall give a brief outline of the reasons why the London Regional Transport Bill was enacted.
The Government's purpose was to restore a stable framework for public transport planning in London — something that had clearly not existed previously. I do not make a party political point, and while Opposition Members do not make such points I shall refrain from doing so. While the Greater London Council had control of the London transport system, its running was incompetent and not in the best interests of Londoners, tourists or other users. That applied throughout the time that it was administered by the GLC, whether Conservative or Labour-controlled. As has been proven by facts, it is wrong to allow politicians to try to take direct control of the overall day-to-day running of a large and complicated business. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has returned.
While under the control of both parties, the GLC benefited from subsidies that rose thirteenfold in real terms between 1970 and 1982. From the comparatively reasonable figure of £6·5 million in 1970, they rose to £369·8 million in 1982. That is a staggering increase in the running of any business and a wholly unreasonable tax upon both the general central taxation revenue and the London ratepayer.
It was essential that my right hon. Friend acted to ensure that that appalling increase did not continue and multiply. It was abundantly clear that, had matters been left to Mr. Livingstone and the current GLC administration, that increase would have risen time and time again. I cannot say that if political control had altered, the figure would have come down; I do not believe that that would have happened. Looking at the GLC's history, I accept that both parties were guilty of the increase. It could not be allowed to continue.
It must be right that something as complex and difficult as the London regional transport system — both buses and underground — should be run properly by business men. That is what the Government set out to achieve, and I believe that that is what they are achieving. Looking at the London structure, it was important, and it remains important, that the system should be brought fully into line and cohesion with the commuter systems that surround our city. One of the instructions given to the London Regional Transport Board is to look at ways of improving co-operation — and even going further than that in the longer term in its liaison with British Rail. That is an important and significant part of the way in which we should set about running our city's central transport system. That can be done only if fully professional management is in control, not the politicians. I believe that that will be achieved.
I say that with greater confidence having looked at the way in which the 1985·86 plan has been laid out. Most of the targets that the Government should be setting are contained in that plan and can be fulfilled provided that no radical change is made. One way in which a radical change could have been made would have been if the original funding plans had not been fulfilled. The result of the court action would have been precisely that — £50 million, a significant part of the funding, would have been removed

from the London transport system and would have been put to use by the Greater London council heaven knows where.
I do not know what the GLC would have done with the money, but I know that it would not have benefited my constituents because they come within a Conservative-controlled area. Most GLC funds during the past two or three years have been funnelled towards Labour-controlled areas in one of the most party politically biased pieces of gerrymandering that I have seen in this country.
The underground mileage will remain unchanged, despite the waffling and wailing in Committee last year when the Opposition suggested that the Government's intention was radically to slash the capital's underground and bus systems. Bus mileage will decrease by 2 per cent. overall, which reflects a change in population shifts. An increasing number of people are able and willing to use their own transport, and there are changes in ownership and the way in which people are living. Two per cent. is not a significant change, and it reflects entirely the system in which it is carried out.
Average fares will be held down so that they increase only with inflation. That is obviously a correct approach. The one matter for which I wish to give credit to Opposition Members and the GLC, although they did it for the wrong reasons, is for standardising fares on the London underground system. For a long time many Conservative Members had longed for the leadership of the GLC to do that. It was a brave step, which was amply proved to be correct because far greater numbers of people use the London transport system now that one can travel a long way on the single fare of 40p than one did previously. It also proved, probably to Opposition Members' surprise, to be an extremely sound commercial act. Because of the increased numbers using the system, the revenue returns increased. I only wish that British Rail could take a leaf out of the book of London Regional Transport, and standardise and lower some of its ordinary fares, which are driving people from the railways to the roads.
The measure will bring about two major changes in the way in which London Regional Transport is run. The first relates to the way in which the unions have managed to prevent changes in the man hours worked. That will be examined, and efficient manning of the system achieved. It is sad to reflect that we have been employing far too many people. We have been using four people per station compared with one person per station in Hamburg, which is directly comparable with our underground system. We have been achieving only half the mileage per man of the Hamburg system and most other foreign systems. It is no good giving ourselves the luxury of overmanning in such an industry. It is necessary to change to an efficient system if we are to provide the required services.
Secondly, to assist with that change, the Government will increase the amount of capital invested from £155 million under the plans of the GLC to more than £200 million. We are increasing investment in the system, which in the long run must be to the benefit of Londoners and tourists who visit London. The reasons for the Bill have already been proved to be valid. The change from political to proper business control will have great benefits for the users of the system.
I shall now deal with some points on which the Government have been criticised. As I said, this is not retrospective legislation but corrective legislation to reintroduce that which those of us who served on the


Transport Bill Committee originally intended. Section 149 of the Bill was challenged successfully in court, and by the Opposition. It is wrong to say that the Bill seeks to undo the courts ruling, and that we seek to put back in new legislative form a matter on which the Secretary of State sought, but was not entitled to legislate. We seek to make the Bill what it was originally drafted and intended to be by those who gave it a majority vote. We seek to ensure that the funds that we intended to be made available under that Bill are produced.
I accept the court's judgment because there has not been time to appeal against it and, therefore, that the court order stands, and that the Government acted mistakenly. It is not the first time that they have been wrong, and I accept that. However, that does not mean that we must allow the consequence of that to be that LRT is deprived of the £50 million that we intended it to have. As Opposition Members know, when a court makes a judgment, it is not allowed to look behind the wording of an Act to find out what the intention of Parliament was. That is specifically excluded. I have practised as a lawyer for 10 years and have often found that immensely frustrating when I was arguing a case and knew that the statute was not being interpreted as intended. For that reason a court comes to conclusions on the effect of a statute which do not always reflect the intentions of Parliament. Today we have an opportunity to ensure that the original intention of Parliament is replaced before it is too late, before the legislation becomes retrospective and before there are good reasons why we should not do so. That is why we are debating this matter, and why I am absolutely confident that we shall have a majority when we vote.
I close by apologising to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) because I cannot be present to hear his reply. I shall certainly read his speech with great interest. The Bill is absolutely correct, and I endorse and applaud what my right hon. Friend is doing.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), who, unfortunately, has now left the Chamber, made many points about the reasoning behind the Government's intentions to remove London Transport from the control of the Greater London council. At the time he was talking about the abolition of the GLC, which he said was in the election manifesto and won many votes for the Conservative party in June 1983. We are discussing the matter elsewhere and will undoubtedly continue to discuss that claim during the next 12 months or more.
However, the hon. Gentleman did not say that the policy to remove London Transport from the GLC was not in the Conservative party manifesto of 1983. The only reason why London Transport was taken from the GLC was to make the abolition of the GLC more acceptable to critics on the Conservative Benches. Clearly, the more services that the Government could take from the GLC, the greater the strength of their already weak case. Clearly, the administration of London Transport was an essential feature of the council's activities, and to make abolition more acceptable, London Transport had to be the first casualty. Therefore, Conservative Members need not lecture us about London Transport being used as a political football. The Government blatantly attempted to use, and succeeded in using, LRT in a wholly party political and partisan way.
The hon. Member for Enfield, North read out some statistics. I do not know where he found them. Unfortunately, he would not give way to me, and now he has left the Chamber, so I shall have to find other ways to find out from where he got them. The figures made little sense to me, and certainly did not accord with reality as we appreciate it. It is nonsense for a Conservative Member to say that the GLC was not running London Transport efficiently and in a way that was popular with the electors of London. I remind the House that the "Fares Fair" policy, which the Labour party in London put at the centre of its 1981 manifesto, undoubtedly secured a great deal of support. The policy was undoubtedly successful in terms of the numbers of extra people who used London Transport while that policy was being followed.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman's party gained support from the "Fares Fair" policy because it was supported by people who live in London and do not pay rates. There are vast numbers of such Labour voters. It is obvious that they would support something that took from the fares and put on the rates the charge for their travel.

Mr. Banks: If my memory serves me right, the hon. Gentleman and I crossed swords on this issue many times in Committee on the London Regional Transport Bill. It appears that I must make the same point again. The hon. Gentleman says that the policy was especially popular with those who did not pay rates. All businesses in London pay GLC rates but the cost of travel in London for their employees was reduced. The policy was, therefore, popular with such ratepayers. Conservative Members speak volubly about business and commerce they benefited enormously from the "Fares Fair" policy as London's business and commercial sector draws large numbers of employees from outside Greater London. In terms of social cost benefits, we at county hall considered that policy to be appropriate. It benefited people who live in London, and commerce and industry in London. One of the reasons why the London weighting allowance was able to be stabilised was the GLC's "Fares Fair" policy.
In economic terms, it is silly and short-sighted to insist that the only people who benefited from "Fares Fair" were those who were not ratepayers. There is no such thing as a free system. We at county hall believe — the figures seem to bear us out—that "Fares Fair" was popular with London ratepayers and economically beneficial to London's commerce and industry. I should have thought that, instead of criticising the GLC for that policy, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir. N. Bonsor) would have been one of the first to applaud it.
The "Fares Fair" policy increased the Labour party's popularity—no one would expect me to shun that—and led to significant increases in the use of bus and underground services. There was a 10 per cent. reduction in cars coming into central London. That also benefited commerce, as it reduced travelling time, congestion and road accidents. There were 3,000 fewer accidents during the operation of "Fares Fair". Moreover, LT was able to produce a £36 million surplus in 1983. How can any Conservative Member say that the GLC did a bad job when it was responsible for administering LT, when all the statistics prove the contrary?
I had hoped that there would be a reasonably free and objective discussion of the statistics and facts and that Conservative Members would have accepted them with


some grace, but there are times when Conservative Members allow their predjudices to prevent them from acknowledging that the GLC ever did anything worthy of London ratepayers. We maintain that the GLC did an excellent job with LT. All the facts bear that out.
Since LT has been taken from the GLC and nationalised —that is a strange thing—can Conservative Members say that London ratepayers have benefited? In the short time since the Secretary of State has had control of London Regional Transport we have had fares increases of twice the rate of inflation, cuts in services and a proposal for 6,950 job losses in the next three years. We now hear that there is to be a 35 per cent. increase in the rate precept over last year's GLC precept for London Transport. How can any Conservative Member argue that that represents a good deal for London ratepayers?
The Conservative-controlled Westminster and Sutton councils have made representations to the Government expressing deep anxiety about the policies that the Government are pursuing in London's transport. One would have thought that the Secretary of State would have second thoughts about his policies when Conservative-controlled councils begin to complain.
The Secretary of State has reprimanded me for being absent from the debate on the Ways and Means resolution on 7 February. I apologise to the Secretary of State and the House but, as I have explained, I was occupied in the Committee considering the Local Government Bill—the abolition of the GLC Bill. If the Government would only lay off the GLC for a while, I might be able to stop rushing around the Palace trying to plug the gaps as the Government assault the GLC from all sides. I have the same problem again this evening. No doubt the Committee is progressing in stately fashion in Committee Room 14, and my name will be missing from the Division list.
That is just one of the burdens that we have to bear as the Government drag the whole House into the day-to-day affairs of local government. I look forward, as I am sure do all hon. Members, to a week in which we are not preoccupied with local government matters. I look forward to a week in which locally and democratically elected councillors are allowed to get on with the job that their ratepayers and electors voted them in to do—to run local services. It is not our place to be so preoccupied with the day-to-day affairs of local government. We do that only because of the general style of the Government. The Prime Minister will not allow anyone, it appears, to take a decision without reference to her. The consequence of such centralised and authoritarian government is bad for the country and bad for the House.
The Bill is unjust and would be wholly unnecessary if the Secretary of State were a man of his word. The Bill arises from another piece of characteristic bumbling by the Secretary of State who, quite uniquely, manages to combine incompetence with breathtaking arrogance. The best description of the Secretary of State is that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who said that the Secretary of State is the only man he knows who can strut while he is sitting down.
The transfer of control of London Transport took place part of the way through the financial year 1984–85, and after the GLC had approved grants to London Transport and set its precept. Section 49 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984, which is the central provision on this,

empowered the Secretary of State to direct the GLC to pay grant to LRT for the remaining part of the year after transfer of control on the appointed day under the Act.
The Secretary of State rushed through the transfer of control of LRT on 29 June, only three days after the Royal Assent. On the same day, he directed the GLC to pay LRT £281.3 million under section 49. He did that without consultation with the GLC. As we all know, he exceeded the maximum permissible sum under the Act by some £10.2 million. He later conceded that error.
The GLC informed the Secretary of State, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, in July of that year that it thought that the direction that he had issued with unseemly haste was unlawful. However, the GLC continued to make payments to LRT, without prejudice, to enable LRT to maintain its operations. Accusations coming from the Conservative Benches that the GLC was not worthy of its control of London Transport, that it had tried to embarrass the Secretary of State, or was trying to sabotage the operations of LRT do not bear examination.
The Secretary of State chose to ignore the GLC and to press ahead. As we are all now aware, the GLC rightly took the Secretary of State to court and Mr. Justice McNeill held that the Secretary of State had acted, in those famous words
unlawfully, irrationally and procedurally improperly in giving a direction which exceeded his statutory powers without consideration of all relevant material and without consultation with the Greater London Council.
Whatever the hon. Member for Enfield, North might think, that was the judge's opinion. The consultation process did not take place. The GLC had been promised that there would be consultation, but the Secretary of State, in what can only be described as his usual highhanded, arrogant fashion, chose not to have that consultation. He got himself into the mess in which he now is. He is now, with no shame, asking the House to dig him out of the hole into which he dug himself. He deserves no sympathy from any hon. Member.
The Bill is unnecessary because, as I said in an earlier intervention in the Secretary of State's speech, he could issue a new legal direction under section 49 after consultation with the GLC. He could have issued a new legal direction after the High Court judgment. Returning to the point about me not being here on 7 February, the Secretary of State said that I should read what he said in the Ways and Means debate. His words are all but engraved on my heart. They are emblazoned within my mind.
In case I should forget them, I have a closely annotated copy of what he said during the debate on 7 February. I should like to remind him of what he said, because he seems ready to try and forget some of what he said. He has forgotten, disowned or reinterpreted what he said in Committee. I have the feeling that if we do not remind him of what he said on 7 February he will conveniently forget that as well. He said:
As I told the House, I intended to appeal against the High Court judgment. But, having studied the judgment, I concluded that it was the Act itself that did not correspond with our intention, which was clearly stated at the time when it was passing through Parliament.
The Secretary of State's first point was:
As I told the House, I intended to appeal against the High Court judgment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, the Secretary of State deliberately sought


to mislead the House when he was asked questions about the judgment on 7 February by saying that it was sub judice. That was accepted by Mr. Speaker. It was not sub judice at the time. If he does nothing else, the Secretary of State could apologise to the House because he misled it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, the Secretary of State at best was thinking that he might appeal. He did not appeal, because he did not have a leg to stand on. That is what it amounted to. To claim that the matter was sub judice and therefore divert Parliament's attention when it should have been discussing the matter was a cruel deception. It was a deliberate attempt to mislead the House. The Secretary of State should apologise to the House.
The second point that the Secretary of State made in that quotation on 7 February was:
But, having studied the judgment, I concluded that it was the Act itself that did not correspond with our intention, which was clearly stated at the time when it was passing through Parliament."—[Official Report, 7 February 1985; Vol. 72, c. 1198.]
The Act, of course, allows the Secretary of State to require the GLC to pay sufficient grant to LRT to meet its operating needs for 1984–85, but not to create a surplus. I remind the Secretary of State that in Committee he said about section 49:
It is not my intention to take more through the clause than is strictly necessary for running LRT for the year in question, so that it shall not end up with a surplus." — [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 March 1984; c. 1114.]
The Bill seeks to do the reverse. Why has the Secretary of State changed his mind? That is the question that he has yet to answer.

Mr. Ridley: It has been answered.

Mr. Banks: The Secretary of State says that it has been answered. It has not been answered to the satisfaction of Opposition Members and the explanation does not equate with the words that the Secretary of State used in Committee. The Secretary of State might say that it was some other Secretary of State who said it, but we believe that it was this Secretary of State who said that he was not going to create a surplus. This Bill creates a surplus. Where do I have it wrong? I should gladly give way to the Secretary of State if he wishes to tell me.

Mr. Ridley: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's point on three occasions. LRT has accrued liabilities for which it needs to have funding in relation to the year in question. He will find the matter set out at some length in the two speeches that I made on the Ways and Means resolution, for neither of which he was present. He will find that I repeated the point this afternoon, when he had left the Chamber. How can I be expected to go on answering the hon. Gentleman's point if every time I do so he rushes out of the Chamber so as not to hear?

Mr. Banks: I do not feel that that was fair. I do not rush out of the Chamber. I find little appealing in the Secretary of State but he does not have that effect on me. I am capable of sitting here listening to him. I am just as capable of reading the words that he speaks. I read the words that he used in Committee and in the Ways and Means resolution debate on 7 February. There is no doubt that what he is seeking to do is the complete reversal of what he said he was going to do when the London Regional Transport Bill was in Committee.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State does not understand what this Bill is all about. He did not seem

—he has accepted the fact — to understand what the LRT Bill was all about. If he cares to cast his eyes over some minutes of a meeting held on 6 June between officials of the Department of Transport and London Transport he will see that those officials were planning a surplus in 1984–85. It is on record. The officials were planning a surplus by increasing fares in January by 11 per cent., when the GLC had originally budgeted for a fares freeze. One understands from the minutes that LRT wanted the increase to be 6 per cent., but, in fact, the fares went up by 9 per cent. Despite what the Secretary of State said in Standing Committee, his officials and LRT officials were planning to create a surplus in 1984–85. Mr. Justice McNeill said that the Department's officials seemed
more concerned with creating a surplus in 1984–85 to be carried forward to enable much smaller revenue to be required in 1985–86 than with careful appraisal of all the relevant facts.
How does the explanation by the Secretary of State now stand? His officials were clearly discussing with LRT officials the creation of a surplus in 1984–85. That is contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said in March last year in Standing Committee. That was certainly the reason why Mr. Justice McNeill concluded that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully. The Secretary of State will not be able to get away with this. His actions will follow him for a long time yet.
The London Regional Transport Act corresponds with what the Secretary of State said he intended last March. It does not accord with what the right hon. Gentleman now wants, because he has changed his mind. The right hon. Gentleman has decided to break the undertaking that he gave to Parliament. The London Regional Transport Act requires the GLC to pay over to LRT some £50 million in grants that are surplus to LRT's operating needs in 1984–85. Our information is that only about half that sum is required in 1985–86 and in the case of the leasing reserve, the money will not be fully utilised until 1996. How can the Secretary of State explain that this money is now necessary? It is not necessary. If his brief tells him that, he has been badly briefed—in much the same way as he was badly briefed during the passage of the London Regional Transport Bill.
The Bill is retrospective in its effect. It is designed to allow the Secretary of State to escape the consequences of his
unlawful, irrational and procedurally improper
action. The hon. Member for Upminster should have though about this aspect as well. Retrospection is not merely about raising money in a particular tax year. It is about getting a Secretary of State off a hook upon which he has impaled himself. In many ways, that makes the Bill even more objectionable.
The Secretary of State is getting around the law. He is abusing his position of power and using the Government's great majority to escape the legal consequences of his action. I remind the Secretary of State that in 1971–72 some decent-minded Labour councillors in Clay Cross decided, in defence of their services and council tenants, to defy the Housing Finance Act 1972. Many of those councillors are still barred from office. They are prevented even from holding positions such as school governor because of the legal action taken against them and because they were bankrupted following the surcharge. Those councillors do not have the power of the Secretary of State to stumble into the House and say, "I have got myself into


a bit of trouble down at the courts, lads. You have to get me out of it. We need another Bill so that we can escape the consequences of my unlawful actions." The Secretary of State by doing that is abusing his powers and undermining democracy. The Bill is therefore especially repellent to us.
The Secretary of State has maintained in Parliament that the court's judgment was about the interpretation of section 49. That is not so. The right hon. Gentleman made that statement again today and was briefly supported by his hon. Friends. Contrary to the assertions of the Secretary of State, the judgment of Mr. Justice McNeill was not primarily concerned with interpretation. It was concerned with the action of the Secretary of State in setting a direction under section 49. The judge found that the Secretary of State had got his facts wrong. The right hon. Gentleman had not taken account of all the relevant factors and had failed to consult the GLC, despite the fact that he had promised to do so.
The Bill is not about correcting bad drafting, but is about the Secretary of State avoiding the consequences of his action in administering the law that he was responsible for piloting through the House. Despite what the Secretary of State says, the Bill is not in the interests of London ratepayers. In speaking on 7 February about the Ways and Means resolution the Secretary of State said:
In laying this resolution, I have at the front of my mind the interests of travellers, LRT and London ratepayers. All stand to lose if we do not legislate. The GLC, through creative accounting and legal action has tried to deprive LRT of substantial sums of money which ratepayers paid specifically for public transport".
The Secretary of State went on:
It is the London ratepayers and the London traveller whom the GLC is seeking to rob."—[0fficial Report, 7 February 1985; Vol. 72, c. 1199.]
I am capable of reading the right hon. Gentleman's words, even if I was not present to hear such little gems.
The Secretary of State said that the GLC precepted for the sum in question specifically for LRT so that it should be paid over. The payment of precepted grant regardless of performance and need is absurd and contrary to all past practice between the GLC and LRT. For example, in 1983–84 budgeted grants were £235 million but the GLC paid over only £173 million and the balance went to offset the 1984–85 precept, the ratepayer receiving the full benefit.
Can the Secretary of State give another example where the Exchequer pays over to a Department of State money for services that were not rendered? If Social Security payments fall short of the amount for which the Exchequer has budgeted — that is pretty unlikely, given the Government's economic and social policy—would the Secretary of State for Social Services award a bonus to all recipients of social security payments? Of course he would not. The money would go back to the Exchequer and would later be used, we hope, to lower tax demands.
The Secretary of State for Transport is suggesting that, despite the fact that LRT does not need the money, the GLC should still pay over money to LRT, thus creating a surplus. Where is the financial or economic sense in that? Where is the natural justice? If the GLC retains the full £50 million now being demanded in the Bill, the ratepayers will get the full benefit of that money either in a reduced rate precept or through improved services.
The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) rightly said that it is not for the Secretary of State to say to a democratically elected council, "You will not get that money because I do not like the type of services upon which you are likely to spend it." The fact is that the GLC is an elected body. It has a perfect right and duty to spend money on behalf of ratepayers. If the money were left with the GLC, the ratepayers would get all the benefit of that £50 million. If LRT received grants surplus to its needs, the ratepayers would get only two thirds of the benefit.
How can the GLC rob the ratepayers by not paying to LRT money that is surplus to its needs in 1984–85? How on earth can the Secretary of State say that this is robbing the ratepayers? It defies both logic and orthodox accounting. The only real beneficiary of this Bill will be the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I have another quote to give the Secretary of State, as he seems to think that I do not pay attention to his words. Again, this comes from the debate on 7 February, and refers to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. He said:
The hon. Lady will doubtless seek to argue, as her amendment implies, that payments of grant by the GLC should be further abated in respect of the improvements in LRT's financial position, which have developed since control was transferred to the Government. That is an intolerable suggestion. It would mean that additional income, which has resulted from improved productivity, better than expected sales of Travelcards and from LRT's decision to raise fares earlier this year, would all be handed over to the GLC. It would mean that the benefits from the efforts of LRT's management and work force since the GLC lost control of LRT would go to the GLC, and not to LRT, its passengers, and London's ratepayers.
There are a number of peculiar statements in that quote. First of all, the GLC is not some sort of corporate body that exists offshore somewhere in the Cayman Islands. It represents ratepayers, so if it is get any money back, the ratepayers of London will directly benefit from the way that the GLC spends the money. The quote is nothing more than a nonsensical self-deception by the Secretary of State.
The improved financial position of LRT is almost entirely due to the success of Travelcard—which was introduced not by the Government but by the GLC—the increase in fares after the GLC had budgeted for a fares freeze, and the introduction of Capitalcard, with its higher charges, when the GLC had planned for integration with British Rail at no extra cost to travellers. None of the changes that the Government have effected in the policy of LRT since seizing control of it from the GLC could be described as
benefits from the efforts of LRT's management and work force since the GLC lost control of LRT". — [Official Report, 7 February 1985; Vol. 72, c. 1200.]
Even the Secretary of State would appear to be capable of putting up fares without making a bodge of it, but he should not claim in the House that it was some sort of miracle, for which he was responsible.
The Bill is nothing more than an attempt by the Secretary of State to legalise his previously illegal position, a position into which he got himself when he refused the help offered by the GLC. It is nothing more than nasty retrospective legislation for which the Secretary of State is responsible. He has misled the House, he is misleading us again and he should have the honour and decency to get up and apologise. He should then drop the Bill.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The Secretary of State praised his handling of LRT. It is not unexpected for politicians to praise their own policies, but in this case it is a bit like Inspector Clouseau praising his policing powers. The Secretary of State has Inspector Clouseau's incompetence, but he does not have his charm. His handling of LRT has been and still is abysmal. It has been announced that rates are to go up by 35 per cent. mainly because the Secretary of State is lumping on an additional £69 million of debt charges which would have been spread over several years if LRT had still been with the GLC. That is despite the Secretary of State's repeated promises in the Committee on the London Regional Transport Bill that his policies would keep rates down.
On top of that, fares are to go up. They have already gone up by an average of 10 per cent. from 6 January. There are variations on that average. For example, short distance journeys, which represent about 35 per cent. of all fares, and which are made by many people such as shoppers and disabled people who need buses for short journeys, went up by about 25 per cent. Children's bus fares rose by 50 per cent. At the same time, fares to Heathrow airport were either kept the same or, in some cases, went down. The Secretary of State's policy is impose fare increases for the ordinary people, while jet-setters get reductions.
The direction of LRT under the Secretary of State has to be taken into account. I shall now quote an article in The Guardian on 21 November 1984 about the direction of LRT. I hope this will make the matter clear to the Secretary of State. It says:
There's a document circulating within LRT called 'Meeting the Challenge' which they are loth to show the public. The 'Challenge' is to reduce the transport budget from £190 million to £95 million over the next three years and LRT will achieve that by cutting services (by 11 million bus miles, which means you wait longer) axeing 6,000 jobs, putting up fares and eventually converting the whole bus fleet to One Person Operation.
That is where the Minister is taking transport for Londoners. I shall quote a little more of this article, which has some interesting points about one-person operation. It says:
OPO buses are a must. They enable LRT to dispense with thousands of conductors and they're the buses that you climb on to with your children, buggy and shopping, balance it all on the steps or platform, and while you grovel for change the passengers inside and the ones queueing outside wait and wait, cars and more buses queue up behind, while upstairs out of sight, thugs, vandals and robbers are busy attacking fittings and women passengers, and when they've finished up there, they can always have a go at the driver because there is no conductor to see or to run for help.
The Secretary of State is proud of the direction in which he is taking LRT, of which that is an example.
I have asked a series of questions about what LRT is supposed to be doing for disabled passengers, for whom the Secretary of State claims to have such regard. I asked how much was being spent on the unit for disabled travellers and was given a cover-up answer. Unless I get a more detailed answer, I can only believe that LRT is spending either nothing or next to nothing on the unit. That point needs to be followed up.
An undemocratic element is involved. People have no say in the rates and fares going up and the services being cut. The Secretary of State cannot be proud of his record, or of the early days of his creation of LRT. On top of that

there is a court judgment against the Secretary of State which I shall read again, because the House, the Secretary of State and the public should hear it over and over again.
Mr. Justice McNeill held that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully, irrationally and procedurally improperly in giving a direction which exceeded his statutory powers without consideration of all relevant material and without consultation with the Greater London Council.
It is the Secretary of State who, according to that judgment, is in the dock. The Secretary of State said today that the Bill is needed because acceptance of that judgment would provide a windfall profit for the Greater London council. It is not a windfall profit that the GLC wants. It wants its money. The judgment makes it clear that the Secretary of State took this money illegally from the GLC.
Another claim made today by the Secretary of State's Back-Bench supporters was that throughout the GLC had not co-operated with London Regional Tranport. That is not the case. It is patently untrue. The actions of the GLC have been impeccable throughout. It was the Secretary of State who refused to consult the GLC. The GLC has been available for consultation throughout. The Secretary of State could have avoided the judgment going against him if he had consulted the GLC, in particular about the £10·2 million for leasing. The GLC made it clear throughout that although it believed that the Secretary of State's direction was ultra vires—and it was proved to be right—it would continue to provide money without prejudice for the operational needs of London Regional Transport in order to maintain a transport system for London. That is exactly what the GLC did. Far from being unco-operative, the GLC has acted impeccably. It sought to get the court case resolved as speedily as possible, but the Secretary of State has continued his vendetta against the GLC. Last week in this House he called the GLC robbers and tricksters, yet, according to the judgment of Mr. Justice McNeill, it was the Secretary of State who was found with his hand in the till.
The Secretary of State is not concerned with London's transport system. I do not know whether he regularly uses the buses and tube. He is not concerned with the good management of LRT, with its users, with its employees or with those who have to pay the bill—the ratepayers of London. The Secretary of State has effectively taken control of the London's transport system, but he has no real interest in its users or in the ratepayers of London. His actions are coloured by his obsession with the GLC. He follows his master's voice — the Prime Minister. He bashes the GLC whenever he can. It is especially convenient for the Secretary of State to bash the GLC in order to cover up his own incompetence. It is the Secretary of State who has been shown to have acted illegally.
The Secretary of State received a nasty shock in court. Conservative Members are not here to hear me say this, but they will feel the repercussions. There is a very nasty shock on the way for the Tories, in London and elsewhere, at the next general election. The obsession of the Secretary of State with the abolition of the Greater London council will not go unnoticed. Londoners will realise that the Secretary of State is ruining London's transport system. I remind the Secretary of State that 74 per cent. of Londoners are now against the Government's attempt to abolish the GLC. Many Conservative Back Benchers are not in the House now, and they will not have the right to be here after the next general election.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Does my hon. Friend accept that on the strength of those hon. Members who are attending this debate, it appears that the Liberal and SDP parties are also unlikely to be in attendance after the next general election? Certainly they are not here for this important debate.

Mr. Cohen: That is a very important point. After the next general election Labour Members will be on the Government Benches in vast numbers, and then we shall be able to make sure that the transport system for London and, indeed, for the rest of the country is run properly.
On the Secretary of State's comments about section 49 of the London Regional Transport Act, in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said:
It is not my intention to take more through the clause
—that is section 49 of the Act—
than is strictly necessary for running LRT for the year in question, so that it shall not end up with a surplus."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 March 1984; c. 1114.]
The judgment of the court went against the Secretary of State because the decision was that the Government were creating a surplus. Was the statement in Committee by the Secretary of State a deception? I ask the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box and deny or accept that he has deceived the House. We have the right to know whether or not he deceived the House. If the Secretary of State deceived the House, he should admit it. If the Secretary of State did not deceive the House, he ought to admit that he made a mistake, and the House ought to be told why he made the mistake. Was it the result of incompetence? Was it because the Secretary of State did not understand the provisions of his own Bill? I suspect that the Secretary of State knew throughout that the Government wanted a surplus to be created and that that was his intention, despite his words in Committee. I note that the Secretary of State is not prepared to come to the Dispatch Box and deny it.
The House was again deceived when my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) asked parliamentary questions after the judgment of Mr. Justice McNeill about the intentions of the Secretary of State. In reply, the Secretary of State said that he was not going to answer those questions because the matter was sub judice; an appeal was pending. Yet the Secretary of State did not intend to appeal, and he has now admitted that no appeal will be made. He knows that he would lose such an appeal. Therefore, the House was further deceived so that the Secretary of State could avoid answering the parliamentary questions that had been asked by my hon. Friend. Those are very grave charges. They are every bit as grave as those which were made and debated yesterday. Even though the House may be sparsely attended today, whereas it was full yesterday, the Secretary of State should not be allowed to get away unchallenged with that kind of deception.
The Bill is retrospective. That must be bad. Its intention is to try to circumvent and thwart the judgment of the court. If everyone found guilty in our courts could do the same as the Secretary of State, our prisons would be empty. The right hon. Gentleman does not have to go to prison, but he should accept the judgment of the court, because it contained the important principle that he should not abuse his powers as a Minister of the Crown. Neither should the right hon. Gentleman use retrospective legislation to get himself off the hook created by his own legislation.
The Secretary of State has said that the Bill is necessary in the interests of ratepayers. That is patently untrue as well. Under the Bill, the GLC will have to pay £50 million more than it need do so to cover LRT's operational costs in 1984–85. The court judgment does not affect LRT's operations this year, because it has sufficient finances to continue its operations. The judgment will affect forthcoming years, yet the Secretary of State is altering the financing of LRT this year.
Originally, future financing meant that two thirds of the total would have come from London's ratepayers and the other one third from the Exchequer. By forcing the Bill through, the right hon. Gentleman is ensuring that the entire 100 per cent. of that £50 million will come from London's ratepayers. That is why he wished to create the surplus in the first place. Yet, even now, when he has been found out, he is still forcing it through via the back door. It is a sleight of hand to ensure that London's ratepayers, instead of the taxpayer, foot the bill for that one third of the £50 million. In effect, this is yet another fiscal tax on Londoners, when it should really be borne by taxpayers as a whole. Consequently, the Secretary of State is robbing the GLC, and his Bill is against the interests of London's ratepayers.
The right hon. Gentleman justified the Bill by stating:
The GLC precepted the ratepayers of London for the express and explicit purpose of passing the money on to LRT. How it can then be said that because it rated the money it should not give it to LRT baffles me."—[Official Report, 29 January 1985; Vol. 72, c. 171.]
The Minister is arguing that, just because the money was included in the GLC budget, it should be handed over to the LRT. That is not the way in which public administration works in this or many other countries; nor is it the way in which private companies, nationalised industries or central Government work. An organisation may well include something in its budget, but if circumstances change and a shortfall arises, the money does not have to be spent. If the right hon. Gentleman is baffled by that, it really puts his competence in doubt.
What is contained in a budget is only an indication of the grant that may have to be paid over. If services and fares policy relating to that grant alter—and we have heard that they have — if the financial requirements change — and we know they have — and if the wider interests of the ratepayers change, that money does not have to be paid over to LRT, as the Secretary of State seems to think.
Indeed, Mr. Justice McNeill was specific about this point in his judgment. He found that the Secretary of State had failed to take account of all the relevant facts. Once again, the Secretary of State's comments reveal the paucity of his competence.
Another justification for this bad Bill is that if the money is not paid over to LRT, there will be disruption to the service. The right hon. Gentleman gives no justification for that claim. It is false, because, as the judgment made clear, this does not affect LRT's plans for the current financial year.
When the House of Lords judgment on the "Fares Fair" case went against the GLC, legislation was refused by the Government. As a result, fares doubled and services were drastically cut. In this instance, we know that fares and rates have aready gone up substantially. They cannot be affected again this year, and the situation can be rectified next year. Although the Government refused to legislate


as a result of the "Fares Fair" case, in this case, where the urgency is not so great, they are rushing the Bill through. There seems to be one rule for the Government and another for the GLC. When any Government act like that, they bring the law into disrepute, and it ill-behoves them to tell councils—as the Secretary of State for the Environment is doing—that they must obey the law.
The GLC's officers are highly professional. They are not politically motivated; they are strictly professional and have the interests of London's transport system at heart. In a report which they submitted to GLC councillors, they concluded:
In the officers' view, new legislation as proposed by the Secretary of State is not necessary and his reasons for introducing it do not stand up to detailed examination. It will inevitably have serious financial and other consequences for the Council and will present considerable difficulties and uncertainties to the Council in preparing and approving its 1985–86 budget and making its precept.
It is obvious that the Secretary of State does not care about the GLC, as he made clear in his speech. The officers also state:
Consideration of the detail of the statement by the Secretary of State though should not detract from the basic objection in principle to the proposed legislation. Mr. Justice McNeill found that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully, irrationally and procedurally improperly in giving a direction which exceeded his statutory powers without consideration of all relevant material and without consultation with the Greater London Council. The Secretary of State has not appealed against this judgment, but now intends to introduce new legislation that is retrospective and goes beyond the original intentions of the Act. Such action is in our view contrary to any principles of fair or reasonable public administration, and contrary to the interests of the London ratepayer.
That sums up the Bill in a nutshell.
The whole debate should be regarded like yesterday's debate. It is a mini-Belgrano for the Government because there are shades of deception. When they are found out, they try to cover up. In both instances they were found out in the courts. The deception of the House and the country arises because of the attitude of Ministers and of the Prime Minister herself. An arrogant and ignorant approach, throwing up smokescreens, is the Prime Minister's style of government. She and her Ministers are prepared to ride roughshod over all opposition, even if that opposition is clearly shown to be in the right. They are also prepared to ride roughshod over public opinion if it does not suit them, regardless of the law.
So much for a party that claims at election after election to be the party of law and order. What a sham. The electors of London and elsewhere are becoming increasingly wise to the attitude of the Government. They are increasingly aware of the Government's nasty, squalid little policies and they do not want them. They will torpedo this terrible Transport Minister and this intolerant Tory Government at the first opportunity.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I did not hear the Secretary of State make his announcement about the direction he would take in regard to the legal judgment against him. I did not have the privilege of hearing him at first hand, neither was I a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. However, I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Transport. I am seriously disturbed about the transport system, as planned in the Transport Bill for which the Minister is responsible and in this Bill. In both cases the Government are making a crude attempt to

attack the conditions of transport workers in the country as a whole. They are attacking wages, conditions, pension arrangements and decent standards through privatisation of bus undertakings. In some cases services are falling to bits, as has been shown in the Worcester and Hereford experiment about which the Select Committee took evidence when we went to the area recently.
The Bill has an Alice in Wonderland content. I have been reading the figures of what could reasonably be expected to be the revenue requirements of the new London Regional Transport Board. Usually the GLC met its requirements. I cannot understand what the additional requirement is. We have not got many details. It is an elementary duty of Ministers to inform the House about what is required.
I do not want to repeat arguments already made because the case has been well aired, but I must refer to the way in which the Secretary of State led hon. Members up the garden path by suggesting that he would go to the Appeal Court against the legal judgment, and then shied away. When a Minister announces that he is going through a further judicial process, that effectively stops searching questions. During the past two days the Chamber has been occupied in debating the relationship of the law courts with the Cabinet, a Cabinet of excesses and of revolutionary change.
Last Thursday there was a walk-out at my local bus garage, which affected bus services, because that garage is scheduled for closure. How many other bus garages in London are scheduled for closure? How many other bus workers are scheduled for the dole? There are procedures within London Regional Transport to discuss redundancy but redundancy is no substitute for jobs. The people of London require jobs and bus services.
What has all that to do with the Bill? I think that the £50 million extra is required to finance redundancies. The Minister must tell us clearly. Now that London transport services have been nationalised, we cannot ask detailed questions in the House about them, as we could in the past question members of the GLC. The public in London are being denied the opportunity to question representatives on fares and other policies. Fares have gone up but at the same time people are facing a reduction in bus services.
Many people are puzzled about why, if the Transport Bill is so good, its provisions are not being applied to London. It is because London bus workers would fight it every inch of the way. It would mean a total shambles for London traffic. If this madness goes on, that legislation may be applied to London.
We have yet to hear the real reasons why the additional money is required. It is ratepayers' money. In effect ratepayers are being robbed. I think it is to offset what would otherwise be required in taxpayers' money from the Exchequer. We know the Secretary of State hates to part with taxpayers' money. His whole political record has been based on this kind of philosophy right from the days when he was sacked by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) for his handling of disputes with Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State knows much about transport. I doubt whether he does. He is a very good water colour artist. We used to be joint conveners of the annual art exhibition. He is accomplished in that direction but in regard to transport he seems to be the extreme amateur and very clumsy. He is absent at the moment from the sparsely attended Government Benches.


In the Alice in Wonderland context I thought that we were looking at the dormouse and that Alice was sitting behind him. He seemed to be having a quiet snooze but I know him better than that. I am sure he had both ears open. He will have to face searching questions.
I have been ploughing through lots of figures about the requirements of London Transport. No doubt the Secretary of State was working out the requirements. We want only to break even. The Secretary of State will have another option when he takes this additional money. He will then be able to boast that at last London Regional Transport is making a surplus.
The Minister might say that under the dual management, as it were, of the GLC and the old London Transport Board, the system managed only to break even, whereas now it has £50 million available. One can think of various reasons why the Bill has been introduced. I believe that it is designed mainly to finance the rundown of the public sector, particularly the bus sector, of the transport industry in London.
We appreciate that policies of what one might call natural wastage will allow for a degree of rundown. At present, there are agreements with the unions — for example, with my union, the Transport and General Workers Union — to the effect that there will be no compulsory redundancies. However, if the compensation is high enough, there will be a degree of rundown in the numbers of staff. That does not mean that people will stop being bus drivers and take up some other occupation. The unemployment scene in London does not allow that to happen; there is no provision for alternative employment.
The Conservatives have been responsible for an awful financial situation in industry and commerce because they have been financing idleness. Whatever the real reasons for their policies, in transport and in other spheres, the Minister must come clean and tell us exactly what the Government have in mind for the future financing of London Transport. What do they envisage as the role of London buses in the future? Over the generations people have learned to rely on the buses. Are we to return to the old days — of 50 years ago and more — that I recall, when we used to wait for the cheap, shoddy bus to arrive? I fear that what the Government are doing is part of a cheap and shoddy policy for the future development of London Transport.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: It is no coincidence that so far in the debate two speakers have come from Newham. We in that part of London rely more on public transport than perhaps the people of any other London borough. The rate of car ownership is relatively low and even those with cars must take into account the disabled and others who are not fit enough to drive. We want to see increased and improved provision in public transport not just in Newham but throughout London.
It is ironic for us to be debating this subject because until 1933 the corporations of East Ham and West Ham ran their own public transport services. They were run by the borough councillors, whom one could see any evening; otherwise one could go to an advice centre to discover all that one wanted to know about the local publicly owned tramways.
Those transport services were gladly given up in 1933 on the assumption that Herbert Morrison's Bill of that year —taken over by the Conservatives of the time—would provide an integrated public service in the new model public corporation to be known as London Transport. That contract has been broken because under the London Regional Transport Act, passed since the last general election, that structure is up for fragmentation. The coordination in the old sense has gone and privatisation will be the order of the day.
The Secretary of State accuses my colleagues at the GLC of being robbers and plunderers. Is the right hon. Gentleman not plundering £50 million from the ratepayers of London in this financial year? For what reason is he doing that? I shall answer that question later in my speech.
The additional £50 million that the Secretary of State has tried to get was adjudicated over in a court of law. The action of the Secretary of State—of this party of law and order — is, therefore, unlawful, irrational and procedurally improper. I cannot help but compare this debate with yesterday's, when we were discussing the verdict of a court in which a person's action was judged by 12 Londoners to have been lawful, rational and proper —the opposite of what the Secretary of State tried to do by order and is now doing in this measure by changing the law.
It is surprising that we should be debating this subject because the Conservatives have all along deplored centralised power and democracy and undue additional legislation. However, since the last general election we have had to put up with the London Regional Transport Act; we now have the Local Government Bill in Committee upstairs, to the proceedings of which the Secretary of State has no doubt had to scurry, and under which only one third of the GLC's functions will go to the boroughs; a few days ago we had the annual London Regional Transport (Levy) Order; we have had the financial resolution which gave effect to the Bill that is now before the House; and today we have Second Reading of the Bill, with the remaining stages and Third Reading to come on Thursday.
All of those measures should not have been before the House of Commons. They should have been in county hall and with the borough councils. All of that has been done by a Government who claim that there has been too much legislation and that Whitehall has too much power. Allthose measures, however, make for greater centralisation in favour of Whitehall. That is why we look on the Bill with a jaundiced eye.
The Capitalcard has received much publicity, and rightly so, because in principle it is a good scheme. Public transport is the lifeblood of London. Without the pulsing of tubes, buses and British Rail trains, much of the social, industrial and commercial life of London would not be possible. Those activities are more possible where those services are cheaper and more frequent, so enabling private cars and taxis to be used to the best advantage.
The Capitalcard scheme which the GLC had intended to introduce—which would have aided that development by, for example, the ease of movement of passengers between BR and LRT—would have cost 37 per cent. less than the scheme which has been introduced under the aegis of the Government. I understand that an additional £5 million in subsidy was to have been allocated to get the scheme off the ground.
It would be a good idea to divert some of the £50 million back to the benefit of London's ratepayers by reducing the cost of the Capitalcard scheme, preferably to the extent that the GLC was planning. In that way, everybody would gain: the ratepayers would get more of their money back in cheap transport, there would be fewer cars on the roads, and more people would travel by buses and trains.
I imagine that many hon. Members listen to the radio programme each morning which comes before and after "Yesterday in Parliament". Just before 8 o'clock this morning a gentleman spoke about what constituted a good deal. He said that when he was in China he found it difficult to understand the claim of the Chinese that there was no necessity to go to lawyers and to the court, because if a deal was good, it would be to the mutual advantage of everybody to keep to it. He was expressing an important principle.
If the principle of the Capitalcard scheme could be instituted in the way that I have suggested, everybody would gain. It would be a good deal for all, including the Government, because they would get more support than they are getting today from their Back Benchers for this legislation. However, we do not have that scheme.
We have others in the five-year plan that LRT is proposing, including an extension of OPO. It used to be called OMO, but we have become more enlightened and it is now OPO—one-person operation. Will a wholesale extension of one-person operated buses in central London be an advantage? Most people who use buses in central London would question that. In suburban services, with relatively long distances between stops, one-person operation may well be an advantage. But is it really believed that in central London it will be useful, and do we want to get rid of conductors everywhere? I suggest that we do not. It may be appropriate on a Sunday morning or in some parts of the day to have one-person operation, but why not retain two people when it is useful and necessary to have the services that the man on the back of the bus provides?

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that studies carried out by the GLC and the old London Transport Executive, before it was taken over, demonstrated that the use of conductor-operated buses resulted in shorter journeys and less traffic congestion? On the other hand, one-person operated buses take much longer at every stop, create more traffic congestion and are therefore much slower on the journey, which in turn results in fewer passengers wishing to use them because this is a slower way of travelling round London.

Mr. Spearing: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. Any individual who travels in London, by one-person operated bus, by car or even, if I dare mention it, by bicycle knows that only too well. That was recognised years ago when LT found that its plans were not working out. One of the reasons why the GLC managed to persuade LT to adopt the Travelcard was that it speeded up one person operation.
By reminding me of that, my hon. Friend also reminds me that the remaining two-crew buses in London are largely of the Routemaster variety—known as RMs— the last real London bus for many people in London. Although some of them are 20 or more years old, they are running well and economically because they do not have

the gimmicks, gadgets and electronics that are incorporated in the new buses. I hope that LRT will not dump the lot, because the Routemaster is the best bus that London has ever had. I know of no reason, given judicious capital investment and renewal, why they should not last a good deal longer.
The Government, however, have other plans. It is ironic that in Bromley and other areas in that part of London they intend to introduce privatisation. We shall see how it works out. However it works out, some of the rates imposed on the ratepayer to pay for LRT will go to subsidise the private operators. It may be questioned how one can have private operators in London, and it may be thought that such a service will not pay if it is run throughout the day. The answer is that it is not designed to pay. This operation will be subsidised by the central London regional transport company to the minimum extent that the tendering operation will permit. Even if private buses are run in Bromley and similar areas, they will not make profits, and, should they make profits, they will be at the expense of the subsidy paid by the ratepayers and the Exchequer. That is one of the hidden features of the Bill, but it is difficult for people to understand it until it is fully explained.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is correct. Does he agree that, once the routes that are likely to make profits are hived off, the ratepayers will be left with the unprofitable routes? The ratepayers will not have those routes on which profits are made to set against the non-profit-making routes, which will result in a higher overall cost to the ratepayers.

Mr. Spearing: If the routes that are privatised are the cream routes, to which my hon. Friend refers, that will indeed be so. Of course, those will be most attractive routes.
I have to say that the speech of the Secretary of State in opening the debate was largely unintelligible. I endeavour to understand London Transport, as he knows, but, although I listened carefully, his speech was so technical and convoluted that I was unable to follow what it was about. That may have been intentional because, as the court found, some of us believe that what he is attempting to do is highly improper and illegal until the Bill is enacted.
I wish to remind the Secretary of State of some of the exchanges that he and I had in consideration of the money resolution on 7 February. I said that the money resolution would permit the Secretary of State to take back from London Transport any surplus revenue. He said that the proceeds from any property development
had nothing to do with London Transport. Such proceeds would be paid into the Treasury. In no sense would the money resolution power be used for the purposes of paying in the surpluses.
So far, so good. Prior to that, he said:
The power in the money resolution was intended to cover the unlikely event of the discovery of oil or of a gold mine on LRT property, or of major property development, the proceeds of which had nothing to do with London Transport.
Is the Secretary of State telling the House that he will take an extra £50 million from the ratepayer and that, if there is a windfall of £50 million through some kind of property development — which, with all the property money swilling around nowadays, I imagine is not very


big in property terms, but is quite substantial from the ratepayers' point of view—he intends to put that money back to the Treasury?
I trust that I have quoted the Secretary of State in context. When he winds up the debate he will of course have available a copy of Hansard, and will correct me if I am wrong. The only interpretation that can be put on reading Hansard of 7 February is that, while taking £50 million from the ratepayer, he does not intend to put any revenue that may result from property development at the disposal of LRT, but intends to collar any surplus for the Treasury. That seems to be an inequitable arrangement, if nothing else.
In the same debate, I said:
I assume that all the additional revenue, over and above the requirements for this year, will be used for improving the service or reducing fares. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give us that assurance.
Courteous and helpful as ever, the Secretary of State leapt to his feet and said:
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance categorically."—[Official Report, 7 February 1985; Vol. 72, c. 1213–14.]
I therefore went away pleased and happy, as far as one could be after such an awkward debate, that the moneys that were going to be paid in by the ratepayer would be used in a proper way for improving services or reducing fares.
However, what did the Secretary of State tell us today? He told us that that money would not be used for that purpose; it would be used for what he called accrued liabilities. He repeated that later in the debate. What are those accrued liabilities? He said that London Regional Transport has contracted, among other things, future redundancy liabilities. He said that he wants the money for future redundancy payments. We know that under the LRT plan there will be 2,450 redundancies in 1985–86, and just under 7,000 redundancies in a three-year scheme.
Can it be that yet again the Secretary of State has, perhaps unknowingly—I am not sure that he is master of his brief—misled the House? Has he got it wrong? How can he, on 7 February, give a categorical assurance that the money will be spent on improving services and reducing fares, when he says today, on 19 February, that the money will be spent on accrued liabilities —redundancies? That is one of the clues as to what the Government are trying to do. They are reducing the manpower on LRT, irrespective of anything else. That has always been one of their objectives. They are asking ratepayers to pay for that not only out of their pockets, but almost certainly in higher fares and probably in longer waits.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is sad that we should be here today debating this rather sordid little Bill with hardly any Government Back Benchers present, few other people present in the House and very little comment about the Bill in the press. I can only think that if this situation was reversed and a Labour Government had to introduce a small piece of legislation to correct earlier legislation the press would be screaming about it and the Conservative party would be screaming about the denial of democracy and so on. However, we have a tame

press and a nasty little measure that can be pushed through so that yet again Londoners will be robbed by the Government of a great deal of money.
Today's debate started logically in December 1983 when the Secretary of State introduced the LRT Bill. He said:
The purpose of the Bill is quite simply to improve London's transport. It marks the end of an unsuccessful 14-year experiment … the mixing up of the commercial and the political. It was the age of 'big is beautiful', when everything had to be coordinated and integrated with almost everything else, so London Transport was thrown to the mercies of the GLC.
The GLC was given a duty under the 1969 Act to 'promote the provision of integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services for Greater London'." — [Official Report, 13 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 855.]
In his lengthy attack on the GLC during his introduction of the LRT Bill that day, the Secretary of State was putting an end to what had been a successful period of public transport planning in London. When the GLC was given in 1969 authority to run London Transport, that was the start of a much more democratic period of operation. It was the start of local councillors having some say in the way in which public transort was run. It was a move towards a much more efficient and integrated public transport system.
The Secretary of State's main objection was that Londoners had voted to elect the GLC, which was prepared to levy sufficient rates to subsidise the integrated public transport system. That was his objection, which was entirely political. When he talks about making LRT into an efficient, board-like operation, he means that he wants LRT to be run at a profit, and then privatised, but he gives no thought to the consequences for other aspects of transport in London, such as road planning, and the effect on the lives of Londoners. Consistently he has shown himself to be unfit to hold the job that he has and unfit to run LRT. Despite all his other duties and the fact that he represents a delightful part of the country a long way from London, the right hon. Gentleman considers himself admirably suited to run LRT. What a mess he has made of it in a short period.
The right hon. Gentleman, when he introduced the Bill, talked about the start of a golden age and about how LRT would become a very efficient operation, fares would not necessarily rise so much, services would not be cut and nobody needed to be afraid for the future because LRT would be efficient under his stewardship. After only a short period, we now have the reckoning of what he has done.
Let us consider the fare changes in LRT. Fares rose by 9 per cent. on 6 January this year. There were variations in that increase. Nevertheless, it was far higher than the rate of inflation. It falls most on the poorest people in London, and the right hon. Gentleman knew it when he put through that increase. The biggest increase was for short-distance journeys. Short-hop fares, which amount to 30 per cent. of all fares taken, rose by 25 per cent. There have been fare increases, and more are on the way. There have been service changes. There were promises of a better service in London, increased bus miles and better integration with tube services and British Rail. Under the plan that the GLC had put forward when the Bill was introduced, in 1987–88 we would expect to have 170 million bus miles per year. Under the business plan put


forward by LRT, the figure is only 159 million miles. Therefore, the figure gets worse as one goes further into the future.
There is a serious effect for the people who have worked hard for a long time on LRT or its predecessor authorities, many of whom have worked for it since they started their working life. The Secretary of State is bringing in one-person operated buses, so 515 jobs are to go this month and 2,450 jobs are to go during 1985–86. The bus business as a whole is to lose 3,800 jobs within the next two years and total job losses over the next three years will be 6,950.
What do the people of London get in return for all that? Do they get a better transport system, or do they pay lower rates or lower fares for it? No; they are paying more. More money is being taken away immediately by the legislation that is being pushed through today, and they are getting a worse public transport system.
I should like to reflect on what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said about the effects of one-person operated buses. That might not seem of great consequence to the Secretary of State or his deputy, the Under-Secretary of State, as they have both left the Chamber. Presumably they do not often travel on buses. Presumably they are not particularly interested in what it is like for those who have to wait for or travel on a bus. As has been explained by many others, if one-man operated buses are introduced in London, we shall have slower and more dangerous buses. There will be more traffic congestion and probably fewer passengers on the buses. Thus more commuter motorists will drive through London. There will be a cycle of decline of transport movements in London.
The only way forward for London is to get rid of the ludicrous so-called business plan and bring in a social plan for transport in London aimed at getting the commuter cars off the roads and getting people on to buses, tube trains and British Rail trains. We should end the nonsense of sacking bus drivers, bus conductors and bus maintenance workers, thus increasing the traffic jams in central London. That is all that it will succeed in doing and that is really what is behind the original legislation, last week's levy order and now this amendment Bill.
I hope that the House will consider what the Secretary of State is proposing and will for once think whether it is sensible to allow him to push through this legislation today and, effectively, tell the people of London that money will be taken from them because the Government got the figures wrong in the first place; that because the Government do not like the council that runs London at the moment they will demonstrate their contempt for the electoral process in London. That is what this Bill is all about. I hope — it is a very faint hope — that the Secretary of State will think again and will withdraw this Bill. His record on public transport matters is a very poor one indeed.
In continuing on this path of once a year debating a levy order for London Regional Transport and the Secretary of State's issuing edicts on the way London Transport should be run, what is his long-term aim? Is it, as he outlined on Second Reading, to have an efficient and businesslike London Regional Transport authority that will have been slimmed down and will be making lots of money; or is it really to make it, in his commercial terms, an efficient operation, disregarding the needs of people in London completely, and then sell it off to private enterprise? Is it

to privatise the most lucrative bus and tube routes in London and possibly parts of the British Rail network and not care a hang about the needs of people in London, so that we go back to the situation before the first world war and immediately after it when there was competition on bus routes and competition for public transport in London? That is the direction in which the Secretary of State is taking us.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend was on the Committee on the London Regional Transport Bill, as I was. He has just mentioned going back to pre-war times, when there was a private element. Does he recall that it was stated in the Committee that in those times private buses would go to where there was perhaps a football match or some other popular function and pick people up there, but instead of the bus coming back the other way so that passengers waiting to go in the other direction could get to their destination it would ignore those people, turn round and go back to pick up the profits on that route? That was surely against the public interest. Does my hon. Friend recall that and does he think that we are likely to go back to those awful times?

Mr. Corbyn: I do not remember those times because I am a product of the welfare state and I am proud to say that I was born under a Labour Government. That is presumably why I enjoy good health.
However, I well recall the Secretary of State's trips down memory lane during the Committee stage of the London Regional Transport Bill when he was talking with misty eyes about what it was like when there was competition in London transport. That competition meant that there were buses competing for places at a bus stand, picking up passengers where there were many of them and ignoring passengers where there were only one or two of them, so that we had the sort of cut-throat methods that operate in some other countries. Indeed, this is starting in London now. If one goes down the Embankment in the morning and at about 5 o'clock in the evening there are numbers of private enterprise coaches running to the Kent coast, to Surrey and to Hertfordshire, competing for passengers and disregarding the traffic regulations on where they have to stand to pick them up. That is what the Secretary of State's policy will lead to all over London if it is allowed to go on.
During the day when there are not such large numbers of people wanting to travel on London Transport buses there will be fewer buses, and the competition certainly will not be interested in looking after those people. It certainly will not be interested in providing a good bus service for pensioners, even if they are able to continue to have the bus pass, for which the London boroughs have now been forced to pay.
That is the grim future which the Secretary of State has in store for us if the Bill goes through and if his original policies continue to operate in London as a whole. I hope that the Government will at least begin to see the idiocy of the position that they have manoeuvred themselves into, the damage that they are doing to London and to the livelihood of many people who work for London Transport, and the sense of anger and frustration that many of those people feel as they see their jobs being threatened, bus routes being taken away and tube lines threatened with closure, and all because of this ludicrous altar of competition upon which the Secretary of State has set his


mind, while devastating so many other areas of British industry and so many other areas of service in this country. That is the direction in which he is taking us.
In my constituency the majority of households do not have access to a car and even in those households which do have such access usually only one person drives, so the majority of people in that household do not have access to a car either. In the 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of households in my constituency that do not have access to a car the people rely entirely on public transport. They are not particularly wealthy people. They are not the sort of people from whom the Secretary of State's slimmed-down, privatised, super-competitive London Transport network would be particularly interested in attracting trade. They are the people who will suffer through his Bill, his policies, and his levy order, for they will have to pay for this whether they like it or not because he and his friends will push this Bill through the House tonight.
The future of London is very grim indeed while the present Secretary of State continues to be in charge of public transport because the other side of the coin is that in his other hat as so-called transport planner he is preparing plans for major motorway networks through London. He is employing consultants to discuss the possibility of creating a further motorway network through east London, another down to south London to join the M23 and others in other parts of London. The only term of reference of those inquiries is not whether the road can be built or whether it is sane to build a road, but when, where and how it should be built. The Secretary of State is trying to drive these motorway networks through London and, in his other hat, taking public transport away from London.
In 10 years' time London will be a very different place unless we get rid of the present Secretary of State. It will be a very grim city. It will have poor public transport, it will have more through roads and more commuter motorists, and it will provide a miserable life for the poorest people who cannot afford or hope to afford a car, as they struggle to travel on a very inefficient, outdated public transport system, as the super-coaches fly to and from the Kent and Surrey suburbs. That is the future which the Secretary of State plans for London.
This amendment Bill is a disgraceful little measure which is robbing Londoners of money which they desperately need for the running of London. It is before us because the Secretary of State was so incompetent in introducing the original Bill, in the levy order debate last week and in every aspect of transport planning that he has espoused. He has shown himself to be a failure in every job that he has had. He has created redundancy after redundancy all over the country. He is now planning to do exactly the same to London transport workers and to those people in London who cannot afford a car and who rely entirely on London Transport to get around their own city. He is an enemy of the people of London, he is an enemy of public transport in London, and he is an enemy of rational transport thinking in London.

Mr. Frank Dobson: It is odd that this measure should have attracted no contributions from the Tory Benches, involving, as it does, substantial sums of public money and affecting the

capacity, or incapacity, of London Regional Transport to do its job for the people who use it daily. What is being proposed will have considerable effects on the financing of the Greater London council, which the Tory party hates so much that it is seeking to abolish it. For that reason, if no other, I would have expected that we would have heard speeches from the Tory Benches, although as the Benches are incapable of speaking themselves, it is necessary for hon. Members to stand up—

Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman had been here he would perhaps have heard two contributions from the Benches behind me.

Mr. Dobson: They were the statutory Back Benchers and the Secretary of State, who recited his Ministerial brief — not, as they say in the divorce courts, for the first time. It is extremely difficult for the Government to muster any of their London Members—of whom there are more than 50 who should have been present today, but who are not — to come to the House and support this squalid measure.
I am happy to acknowledge that everyone can make a mistake. I am as capable of that as the next person, and no doubt many would say that I am even more capable.

Mr. Corbyn: Of course, my hon. Friend is much less capable than most of making a mistake. While commenting on the lack of Conservative Members, perhaps my hon. Friend will reflect on the absence of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who usually has so much to say at enormous and legalistic length. Perhaps this shows that the Liberal and Social Democratic parties do not give a damn about money being stolen from Londoners by this incompetent Government.

Mr. Dobson: I must not be tempted by my hon. Friend to cast aspersions on the Liberal party, or even on its peculiar ally the SDP. However, its members are spectacularly noticeable by their absence. In view of the value of the contributions that they normally make to our debates, we will not miss them and there will be more time for other hon. Members to speak.
From time to time the House has sympathy with people, even Tory Ministers, who have made mistakes. I recall the occasion when the Secretary of State for the Environment — presumably shortly not to hold that office — was Secretary of State for Social Services. Without the necessary statutory provision to back him, he dismissed certain members of the Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark health authority because they would not carry out every word of his bidding. It then turned out that he did not have the power to dismiss them, so he quickly introduced a Bill that was referred to at the time as the law of Jenkin's cock-up to put right his little mistake.
Although there was a certain arrogance in the way that the right hon. Gentleman dismissed those people without having the statutory right to do so, people felt that it was the sort of mistake that Ministers in a hurry might make. He took the power to set aside the court's decision. That is exactly what the Secretary of State for Transport wants to do tonight. However, there will be little sympathy for him because his major characteristic, acknowledged even by his hon. Friends, is one of overweening arrogance. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr.


Flannery) once summarised it perfectly. He said that the right hon. Gentleman was so arrogant that he was the only man in the world who could strut while sitting down.
We know that the right hon. Gentleman comes from an ancient and distinguished Northumbrian or Durham family — I am not sure which. It might be that they are descended in part from people who were prominent in the religious life of this country during the reign of Bloody Mary. I am told that Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley were educated at Cambridge and burned at Oxford. They suffered for their Protestant views. In the dispute with the Catholic divines before their demise, it was said that Master Cranmer leant upon Master Latimer, and Master Latimer leant upon Master Ridley, and Master Ridley leant upon the singularity of his wit. It is a pity that the witty branch of the family was snuffed out at such an early stage.
The right hon. Gentleman is definitely one of the northeastern Ridleys. While sculling around in my mind, I remembered an immortal line from "The Blaydon Races." It was said that people were going to the races
to gan on' see Geordie Ridley's concert in the Mechanics Hall at Blaydon.
It is extremely unlikely that the right hon. Gentleman is a descendant of the Ridley in question, especially as the Library supplied me with a reference which shows that that famous song was written by someone described by the rather pious producer of the reference work as a crippled pub comedian.
This is a rather crippled Bill coming from a crippled activity by the Secretary of State. We must be straight about this matter — the Secretary of State gave certain undertakings when the London Regional Transport Bill was in Committee. He put them into operation and the courts—not the GLC or Mr. Clive Ponting—found that he had behaved unlawfully, irrationally and procedurally improperly. The court might also have added that he behaved characteristically, but it is not unlawful for him to do so. It is not right that he should behave unlawfully, irrationally and procedurally improperly. Tonight he is trying to put right what he did wrong — a form of legislative Tipp-Ex, trying to cover the slip-up. But it was not a slip-up — it was a deliberate effort by the right hon. Gentleman to do what he did not have the power to do.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot claim that he was not warned. When he put forward his proposals, the GLC told him that he was wrong before it took him to court. It said that he had his figures wrong and that he should do them again. But the right hon. Gentleman persisted, in the hope — no doubt in the knowledge of the prejudices that prevail in the British courts—that he might get away with it. On this occasion, he did not.
We debated in a rather curious manner the Ways and Means resolution flowing from the Bill. We discussed it before we saw the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that he would remind her of the Travel Concessions (London) Act 1982, which was the result of the Bromley case. He said:
The House of Lords decided that the Greater London Council did not have the power to allow concessionary fares to be paid, although it had been doing so."—[Official Report, 7 February 1985; Vol. 72, c. 1222.]
So the Government introduced a Bill to put that right.
That is a complete misrepresentation of the position. The fundamental reason for the Secretary of State losing this case was not his interpretation of the law but his

administration of it. The Law Lords in the case to which he referred did not rule that the GLC's concessionary fares scheme was unlawful, but that the GLC's "Fares Fair" scheme was unlawful. The detailed terms of the judgment raised doubts about the pensioners' concessionary fares scheme. I can say that because I was one of the first hon. Members to raise those doubts.
It is therefore legitimate for me to remind the House what the Secretary of State's predecessors said when I raised doubts about the continued validity of the concessionary fares scheme. On 17 December 1981, the Prime Minister said:
I welcome the clear and unanimous judgment from the House of Lords and congratulate Bromley on having taken steps that have clarified the position for London's ratepayers." — [Official Report, 17 December 1981; Vol. 15, c. 447.]
On 18 December 1981 the Minister for Health, then the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, said:
There is no doubt about the validity of the concessionary fares policy. The GLC and London Transport have clear authority, under section 138 of the Transport Act 1968, to grant concessionary fares to pensioners.
In case people had not taken that on board, he continued:
I have scotched one fear already, that the judgment affects concessionary fares to pensioners. They are not affected by yesterday's judgment because concessionary fares are covered by different legislation." — [Official Report, 18 December 1981; Vol. 15, c. 562–80.]
On 21 December, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said:
There is no threat to London pensioners' free fares. These are expressly provided for in a separate statute. My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport made that clear … Therefore, there is no question of frightening London's pensioners into thinking that their free fares are at risk."—[Official Report, 21 December 1981; Vol. 15, c. 804.]
The next day, there was a slight shift, when the aforesaid Under-Secretary of State for Transport said:
But a week after the judgment the first shock horror stories in the newspapers or the more reasoned comments in this debate have not persuaded us that anyone has yet established any basis for rushing into legislation."—[Official Report, 22 December 1981; Vol. 15, c. 926.]
In other words, the idea that there was a threat to pensioners' concessionary fares was a nasty, stupid smear being put about by the Labour party. That is presumably why, on 24 February 1982, the Government introduced the Travel Concessions (London) Bill to reaffirm the right of the GLC to provide concessionary fares for pensioners. To suggest that there is any comparison between the judgment of the House of Lords on the "Fares Fair" campaign and the Government's introduction of a travel concession Bill with what the Secretary of State is doing is utter and unremitting twaddle, and exactly what we would expect from the Secretary of State.
If, after the House of Lords' judgment on the "Fares Fair" policy, the Government had introduced a Bill that did what this Bill is supposed to do — turn the law to what the Secretary of State says that he thought it was — the Government should have been doing the decent thing by making lawful the GLC's "Fares Fair" policy. But they did nothing of the sort. Far from it. To use the Prime Minister's word, they rejoiced at the GLC's embarrassment, rejoiced that the "Fares Fair" policy had been stopped by accident by the vandals in ermine and rejoiced that, without any change as a result of an election in London, they could change London's transport policies. The Government relished what happened. That also is typical.
It is worth considering what the Government's creature — London Regional Transport — has been doing since what might be described as the successful, clear, up-to-date and legally unchallenged part of the London Regional Transport Act has come into effect. Before considering what LRT has been doing, we should put down a proper basis for comparison. To make a proper comparison we must compare LRT with what the GLC intended doing with transport, fares and the movement of Londoners about this great city had its duties not been snatched away and handed over to the Secretary of State's faceless quango, which is known as LRT. I remind the House that it is a quango that levies rates on Londoners.
The GLC planned to increase bus services to 170 million bus miles a year, instead of the current 166 million, to increase rail services to 30 million train miles per year, instead of the current 29.3 million, to have no increase in fares in real terms, to integrate LT and British Rail ticketing at no extra cost to passengers, to provide from ratepayers, who have done that thing which ratepayers sometimes do to the horror and indignation of Tories—voted in favour of it—broadly the same level of subsidy in real terms during the next three years and to seek a 1.5 per cent. improvement in productivity per year for three years.
The first results of that general policy from the 1983 fares cuts and simplification proved its success. By the third quarter of 1983–84, there had been a 10 per cent. increase in bus passenger miles, a 25 per cent. increase in underground passenger miles, a 10 per cent. reduction in car commuting into central London, no less than 3,000 fewer road accidents on London's roads and a £36 million surplus for London Transport.
Under LRT we have had a 9 per cent. fare increase at the beginning of the year, cuts in services and the threat of further cuts. The result of reductions in subsidies is increases in fares and cuts in services. We are getting back to the barmy old spiral that LT had gone down for years. There had been fewer people travelling, less income from the travelling public and a deteriorating service, leading to fewer people travelling, less income and a further deterioration in service. The reintroduction of that deterioration has been the Government's policy objective, using their faceless creature, LRT, to put that policy into effect.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the board of LRT was, by and large, in office when the GLC was running LT, and that it worked well for the GLC on the policies that the GLC put forward on behalf of ratepayers and the travelling public? The fact that the board now has a different view of the future of London's transport must be the result not of the board changing its view but of it being instructed to undertake different policies, which are less in the interests of the travelling public of London than those put forward by the GLC.

Mr. Dobson: I am sure that there is a great deal of truth in that. There have been and still are a considerable number of thoughtful and talented people who are members of the board of LRT and who were previously members of the board of LT. But it all depends on what the gaffer says. If he tells one to run down the services,

and provides less money for them, as the Secretary of State does, the board will do it because it is its job to follow the instructions given.

Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend reflect that the primary purpose of LRT authority legislation was not to provide good public transport for Londoners but to make an efficient businesslike operation of LT services? As a secondary consideration, the number of passengers it carried depended on how much money it could make from them, and not on whether the passengers were satisfied with the service.

Mr. Dobson: I am sure that that is the case, whatever the Secretary of State said in the interminable debates that took place on the London Regional Transport Act 1984. It is clear that the last consideration to enter the minds of the Government was the standard of service that LRT should provide for Londoners in future. Their first consideration was to wrest control of LT from the elected GLC. That was their primary, vindictive objective. It was followed by their desire to reduce the amount of taxpayers' and ratepayers' subsidies to LT and, if possible, to get their people to run LT in such a way that certain readily identifiable profitable aspects of the business could be sold or handed in the usual squalid way to their mates, who could make money from them while the rest of LT suffered from the disappearance of the income from the profitable parts. That is a typical Tory attitude to a public body.
I move from general comment to the question of the proposed reductions in the staff of LRT by a figure approaching 7,000 during the next few years. Whatever the policies of the GLC and the trade unions involved in LT may have been, I have always been opposed to shedding jobs in public transport in London, because, whenever jobs are shed, services suffer. It will not be those who travel on one-person operated buses who decide whether we shall have them, but those who are driven in one-chauffer operated cars. They will also decide whether we travel from tube stations that are denuded of staff and on tube trains that have few staff, whether ordinary ticket collecting staff, ticket inspectors or transport police.
Every time there has been a reduction in the staff working at London transport's stations, on buses or British Rail's trains that carry commuters into Greater London, there has been an increase in violence, hooliganism and vandalism. They are a major deterrent to people who travel by bus, underground and train. People like to feel safe. Those who work on the buses, the underground and trains also like to feel safe when they are doing their jobs and helping the public by providing a decent public transport service. The more we reduce staff at stations, on buses, trains and the underground, the more violence there will be. If that violence were suffered by the decision makers, they would not reduce staff. There is not a recorded case of a board member of London Transport being assaulted while on duty, but there are innumerable instances of assaults on people who drive buses, collect fares, sell tickets and check whether travellers have tickets. As far as I know, no member of management nor a Minister has had that experience.
In the middle of last year I went to a funeral at Seven Kings. The only crime of the deceased was that he had asked three vile people for their tickets. They picked up a piece of metal, poked it in his eye and killed him. That


is what is happening in our capital city, and it must be stopped. But the only way to stop it is to ensure that there are sufficient staff at work on the transport system.

Mr. Corbyn: What my hon. Friend described was a sad but apt example of what is happening in London now. I know that he is a regular user of buses. Would he describe what it is like travelling on a one-person operated night bus in London? Such buses are often full of drunks and extremely violent people, but the driver is the only person from LRT on the bus. He has difficulties in controlling those people without assistance and, in some cases, he has not even a radio contact to ask for help.

Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The reason why nothing is done about such matters is that none of those responsible for making decisions ever travel on those buses. It is not only that they do not drive the buses, but that they do not enter them as passengers. So long as the rich and influential do not use our transport system, that system will be unsatisfactory for everyone else.
I am told by constituents, especially women, that they do not like to go out at night, especially on London transport. They do not like arriving at Mornington Crescent or Camden Town tube stations because they are frightened. They fear that if someone tries to rob or assault them, there will be no one to help them, because of the policy of getting rid of staff. They are right. There is no case recorded of a ticket vending machine coming to the aid of a member of the public or a member of staff who has been assaulted. Automation spells a reduction in safety as automatically as it spells a reduction in staff.
If we are to have a humane and safe transport system for the capital city—people deserve it—we must return to having people working on the system. I utterly reject the idea that we can measure the standard of services of LRT and improvements in what is called efficiency solely by saying that we have got rid of another 2,000 or 3,000 members of staff. What is the cost of getting rid of those members of staff? What is the cost in fares evaded, people who are put off travelling, and damage from vandalism, which we then all have to bear? None of that is borne in mind when the cost accountants are working out the cost-benefit analysis of sacking a few more underpaid LRT and British Rail workers in London. That is the last consideration to arise.
Violence manifests itself on our transport system in various ways. The first is associated with fare evasion. If someone who is possibly drunk decides that he does not want to pay his fare, he may well start beating up someone whose job it is to ask for that fare. If there are two or three such people and they feel secure that there is only one member of staff, they are on a good thing, are they not? They are likely to succeed in not paying the fare, if necessary by threatening violence, or carrying out a violent act against the person who is trying to get that fare from them.

Mr. Deakins: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that as the staff are reduced on tubes and buses there will be an increase in fare evasion on LRT because there will be greater opportunities to get away with it? My hon. Friend, I and hon. Members from both sides of the House often travel on the tube late at night after Sittings of the House. It is appalling to find that when one arrives at one's destination there is usually only one person left. The ticket office is usually closed because of staff shortages and there

is just one forlorn ticket collector — usually a man although not always. On numerous occasions I have seen young people threatening the ticket collector and going through without paying their fare. Such behaviour will increase. It is the result of running down facilities.

Mr. Dobson: That is right. Over the years it has become easier to evade paying a fare because of destaffing late at night. It leads to more violence. People are taken by surprise if someone asks them to pay their fare. They feel frustrated and angry. It may be that when they went to the amusement arcade, boozer or whatever, they decided that they could safely blow their last few bob because the chances were that no one would stop them and ask for their fare. When someone does they are upset because they have no money. That is related also to the fact that the fares are going up. The higher the fares, the more people will wish to evade them. People will find it less and less easy to afford the fares.
The issue all boils down to whether there will be anyone to help. Will there be anyone to go to the aid of the person who is doing his job? If one passenger starts beating up another during a row will there be members of staff to do anything about it?
Will alarm systems be installed in our public transport? I am glad to say that there has been an increase in the number of buses in which alarm systems are installed. We need more. We need them on the underground and on British Rail's London suburban services. If their existence were well known; if cameras and alarms were readily recognisable; and if there were a few spectacular cases of people getting nicked and punished for what they were doing, the alarms would be effective and people would be deterred. The alarm itself would deter an assault or threatened assault, but no alarm system will work if at the same time we get rid of the people who would respond to it when it goes off. If there is no one to respond to the alarm that is worse than not having an alarm. Destaffing would again lead to increases in violence.
Considerable efforts should be made — they might have been by the GLC but are not likely to be made by LRT and British Rail—to go into schools and colleges to persuade young people not to be violent on our transport system, and that vandalism should be reduced. We need co-ordination between the various responsible bodies in London. We need co-ordination between London Transport and British Rail because at the moment their approach on how to stop people lobbing rocks over a bridge is different. One of them fences off the line, the other does not. "Daft as brushes", to quote the Tory party chairman from yesterday. That is unsatisfactory.
We need also a greater commitment from Ministers, including the Home Secretary who, when he is not deploying Metropolitan police in the coalfields, might remember that his primary responsibility is to deploy the Metropolitan police in London, where we pay their wages. We also pay the wages of the transport police in various ways. The Home Secretary had a well-publicised conference on violence in May 1980. It was then proposed that the number of transport police employed by London Transport should be increased from about 200 to about 500. We believed that that was a massive commitment from the Tory "law and order" party even if not many Conservative Members listen or take part in debates such as this one. There has not been much commitment towards increasing the number of London Transport police. There


are now about 300. That is still considerably short of the figure of 500 which was talked about and which obtained considerable Government publicity in May 1980.
That is one of the problems with this Government. They think that if they can have a press conference, two press statements, and an appearance on TV on law and order the problem is solved. It is rather like their short, sharp, shock treatment, which has been a complete failure. We want a steady and consistent commitment to improve the safety of people who travel and work on London's transport system. We are not having that commitment.
There has been a reduction in the number of British transport police deployed on the railway. That is not what we want. We want an increase in the numbers. I do not believe that the problems of violence and vandalism on our transport system are likely to be resolved simply by deploying many more police. That is not my normal approach to any such matter. To reduce violence to its previous low levels, when the lack of violence was a source of pride and provided a sense of security to those people, including women, who worked on and travelled on our public transport system, we need more people working on the buses, the stations and trains. The sooner we recognise that that is the only way to a secure and sensible system, the better.

Mr. Corbyn: I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis of the problems in providing security on London Transport services and safety for passengers because of the LRT's destaffing policy. The Conservative party—the party of business efficiency and private capital—is killing many businesses and enterprises in London by its public transport and road planning policies. By continually destaffing London Transport and throwing more traffic on to the roads as commuters, the Conservative party is increasing public congestion and thus slowing the journeys of delivery and commercial vehicles. Businesses are therefore disinclined to invest and operate in central London.

Mr. Dobson: I am sure that that is the case. Certain employers, including those in the service and leisure industries, are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit staff, especially women, unless they provide private transport to bring their staff into central London and, particularly, to take them home late at night. Civilised life in other countries and other capital cities requires that people should feel safe and secure, whether in their homes or travelling from their homes. Until a sense of security returns to our city, we shall be failing in our task.
I believe that the GLC had taken that fact on board. The GLC was vilified by the Conservative party for recruiting more staff for London Transport. It is a fact that some of the staff who were recruited were London Transport police and that more people were put to work on the trains, buses and stations. All that has come to an end. To save a few measly million quid, LRT, under this Government, is going all the other way.
I end—

Mr. Harry Cohen: Before my hon. Friend ends, may I raise one point? My hon. Friend has made an excellent analysis of the deterioration in safety because of lack of staff, and I fully agree with him. Will he reflect on the fact that many dingy and badly lit stations are a

paradise for the violent person? Such places encourage violent people. The GLC had a major programme of refurbishment of stations. That would have helped to reduce violence. This Bill is about cutting LRT's budget, and that means cutting the refurbishment programmes. That will increase violence.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend must have some sort of sixth sense, because I proposed to end on that very point. A place that is well lit and well staffed gives people a sense of security. If some Cabinet members, instead of travelling to and from their offices in chauffeur-driven cars, travelled late at night—for example, to the Mile End or Bethnal Green stations—

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Dobson: May I just finish this passage, as the Secretary of State for Defence would have said yesterday. If Cabinet members travelled to such places late at night, they would recognise that people do not feel safe in places that are dingy, wet and full of puddles. Such places do not engender a sense of security. What comes to mind is a sense of Dickensian London. There are still far too many Dickensian premises in our transport system. We have to spend some money now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) so acutely pointed out, the GLC proposed to improve the conditions in all these rundown stations.

Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend help us, and perhaps give way to a Conservative Member, if one cares to rise, by telling us the last time that the Prime Minister travelled on a bus or used any other form of public transport? When did the Secretary of State for Transport or Under-Secretary of State last travel on a bus or train? Minister have the most expensive form of public transport available to them—a chauffeur-driven car, from which they can view the buses travelling around them. Does my hon. Friend agree that if Ministers lecture people about the efficiency or otherwise of London Transport and London Transport workers the least they can do is come to this place and travel home at night by bus to find out what it is like?

Mr. Dobson: I have no means of inquiring into the Prime Minister's transport habits. In so far as it was possible within the rules of order of the House, I asked the right hon. Lady a couple of years ago whether she had travelled by train while she was Prime Minister—first class, second class, in the guard's van, or Bob's your uncle. The answer was that she had not. As far as I know, the only time that the right hon. Lady had been on a train was on the first day of the general election campaign when she came to my constituency, without telling me —breaching the usual courtesies—to name a locomotive at Euston station. That is the nearest the right hon. Lady has got to travelling on a train since she became Prime Minister. Those who have been to Euston station will recognise the fact that it is very different from, and less Dickensian than, the places I described previously.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Was not the intervention by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) totally foolish? It is obvious to everyone that a Prime Minister or any other Minister is so intensely busy that he or she must set about saving every five or 10


minutes. It is idiotic to say that people should be egalitarian about queueing for buses. Everyone knows that that is ridiculous.

Mr. Dobson: I have sometimes been accused of egalitarianism, but I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister should necessarily travel from No. 10 Downing street to the House of Commons by the 29 bus.

Mr. Stott: A 77A bus.

Mr. Dobson: I travel on the 77A bus. I would not want the right hon. Lady on that bus, because it might disturb me in the morning.
I am not saying that such people should necessarily travel all the time by public transport. I suggest that they might take some time to do what the rest of us have to do —the people who pay the taxes and the rates to enable London Transport and British Rail to carry out their spending programmes.

Mr. Stott: I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying. To dispel the myth created by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), does my hon. Friend recall the days when I used to work for a former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan)? During his term as premier my right hon. Friend often travelled on public transport. He used the railways constantly and therefore had a good knowledge of the railway system.

Mr. Dobson: I am sure that that is the case. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) had a good railway service to Cardiff of which he made use. The Prime Minister should make use of the railway system now.
A point needs to be kept in mind, for example by the Conservative Members who took part in the GLC money Bill, when there was a revolt of Tory Back Benchers from London that was about as spontaneous as the crowds in Red square in Moscow. They put forward a proposition to reduce, for the first time in its history, the GLC money Bill totals below the level that the GLC and the London boroughs wanted. Several items in that Bill were lopped away. One was the money to provide for LRT to improve some of the rundown stations.
The GLC had made proposals to help British Rail finance improvements to some of its stations, no doubt in the commuting constituencies of many Conservative Members. These were positive proposals to make the stations decent again, so that people could take a pride in their job, so that people did not sit in ticket collecting boxes with water running down the back of their necks, so that they did not have to talk to members of the public who were standing in great puddles of water on a platform, and so that people could keep dry and warm while waiting for a tube or British Rail train. There was nothing startling — no proposition that London ratepayers should send people to the moon. All that was being proposed was that the standard of all LRT stations should be raised to the level of the best.
As part of my basic political philosophy, I believe that if a good standard of station is right for any person, community or neighbourhood in London, it is right for everybody. There should not be nice stations in nice areas and rundown stations in rundown areas. There was a commitment from LRT when it was controlled by the elected GLC. Now we have an acceptance by LRT of the

limitations imposed by this private transport Government trying to make sure that the improvements that Londoners have consistently voted for will not be carried out.

Mr. Cohen: It looks as though my hon. Friend will leave the point of the refurbishment of stations, with which he has dealt excellently. Before he does so, I have one more point to draw to his attention. At this time of extreme cold, many people are homeless. They should be found homes, but, in the meantime, many of them die from hypothermia because they are outside—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I must remind the House that we are on Second Reading, not in Committee. On Second Reading, hon. Members are allowed to speak only once and should not make further speeches under the guise of interventions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be brief.

Mr. Cohen: I shall be brief. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who is in his place, and the GLC have urged LRT to use stations to accommodate homeless people. Therefore, those stations—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) should allow the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to reply to him on the points that he has made so far.

Mr. Dobson: I accept my hon. Friend's point. Parts of the underground system are warmer than places where people doss down on the Embankment, in a park or on a street corner. I have never seen the primary function of our transport system as being a place for the homeless. If there is to be a commitment to a transport system about which we are not ashamed, there should also be a housing system of which we are not ashamed so that we do not feel embarrassed when we see people who are reduced to going down to underground stations because it is the only shelter that they can get and the only place where they can get warm in the capital city of what is still one of the most prosperous nations in the world.
Many aspects of our great city are a source of profound grief and shame to many of us, and something should be done about them. The trouble with this squalid little Bill and this squalid little Government is that we are not getting even a proposal to do something about transport. We need a much greater commitment to ensure that the services that Londoners have made clear at the ballot box they want will be provided, particularly when they have also made it clear at the ballot box that they are prepared to fund the improvements and the standards that they desire.
The trouble with this Government is that they are not prepared to accept any decision. Today we are expected to set aside a decision of the High Court. Yesterday, with a rigged jury of 400 Tories, the Secretary of State for Defence decided that he could set aside the judgment of 12 good men and true at the Old Bailey. It will not wash. The British people, including the people of London, will not tolerate this attitude towards what the courts have decided. They will measure and judge those who wish to set aside, in a cavalier fashion, the decisions of the courts. I am confident that it will not be long before a vast majority of Labour Members of Parliament in London will be battling away to ensure that Londoners have not just the transport but every service that they want and deserve and that their children deserve. That is what we are here for. We know that the Government do not subscribe to any of those views—but then they are a Tory Government.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I shall not go down the many avenues traced by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I frequently use the bus, underground and rail services. However, whenever possible, I use my bicycle — a bicycle presented to me by the pupils of the school that I left to come to the House. When I am on that bicycle, I notice that the GLC, of which the hon. Member has spoken with such tenderness, has seriously failed to maintain the roads of London, because I get many ghastly jolts caused by potholes every few yards. The hon. Member talked of going to the funeral of somebody who was injured on the public transport, and that was a sad story. However, not long ago, I had to go to the funeral of a constituent who had had a fatal accident on an unmaintained road.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: That road was totally unmaintained by the Greater London council. It led to a fatality—a very serious matter.
When the hon. Gentleman referred to Bethnal Green and to east London underground stations and said that they were bad, I wondered whether he had ever been there. I lived in east London for a few years and I taught there, too. Bethnal Green station is a very fine station and the people of Bethnal Green are very fine people. They would not be very pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman speak in the way that he did about them. He spoke disparagingly. That was both unacceptable and unfair to the people and underground stations in east London.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: No, not when the hon. Gentleman asks me in those arrogant terms.

Mr. Dobson: Will the distinguished Member for Ealing, North give way to the humble Member for Holborn and St. Pancras?

Mr. Greenway: I cannot accept the obsequious attitude of the hon. Gentleman. There is no place in this House for obsequiousness of that nature.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras also spoke of Ministers travelling in chauffeur-driven cars and castigated the Prime Minister for doing so. The hon. Member ought to go to Ealing and see the Leader of the Opposition regularly whisked away in his chauffeur-driven car — and he is not the only one. So what is the hon. Member talking about? He is talking a lot of nonsense and he knows it.
For the LRT board to be running London's transport is a breath of fresh air for Londoners, after the GLC's abortive attempts of the past four years in particular. We must remember exactly what happened and look at the facts. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who tried to intervene twice in such contrasting ways, spoke of Mornington Crescent station. I am able to speak from personal experience, having worked very near to Mornington Crescent station for a period of 12 years and used that station every day. The hon. Member said that people were afraid to use the station at night because no staff were on duty there. There never were any staff at Mornington Crescent station, and for a very long time no trains stopped there. The hon. Member needs to learn a little more about his constitutency and also about a number of other aspects of transport in London.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Greenway: It is only right to answer some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, especially since I have such personal knowledge of and acquaintance with the area and of the people the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The group that ran the Greater London council since 1982—the group that is particularly near to the heart of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and to the hearts of so many of his hon. Friends—was responsible for doubling the fares of my constituents and of other Londoners in 1982 and 1983. At the same time it doubled rates for Londoners. One had a hell of a time under that beloved GLC.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: Either one paid double rates and double fares, or, if one did not use public transport, one paid double rates anyway. That is what we have had to endure from this particular GLC.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Greenway: I cannot see the hon. Member. He might just as well sit down.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Greenway: To have had the London Regional Transport board take over — [Interruption.] I am just looking to see which hon. Member is chiacking from a sedentary position.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are getting a bit too much of this chiacking from both sides of the House and too much hand waving, too. I hope that the hon. Member will be allowed to continue his speech.

Mr. Greenway: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of what you have just said, I think that I should continue.

Mr. Corbyn: You are talking nonsense.

Mr. Greenway: I hear it said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are talking nonsense. I think that you are entitled to rebut the hon. Member.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have a hearing difficulty in my left ear.

Mr. Greenway: I can inform you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of what I heard. I have very acute hearing in both my right and left ears, whether the hon. Member speaks in a low voice or in his usual mellifluous tones.
According to my experience, during the short hime of its existence London Regional Transport has produced a quite new attitude towards London's transport. I shall give instances. In my constituency the busy A40, which many people use regularly, has five bus stops. Large numbers of my constituents have to stand at those bus stops in draughts, rain and great discomfort. When the GLC ran London Transport, I tried for many years to get bus shelters for my constituents at those five bus stops. Did I have any success? I am afraid not. However, as a result of my right hon. Friend's Act, London Regional Transport was created and within six months I was able to persuade that body to provide bus shelters for my constituents. There is a whole new atmosphere of reasonableness and helpfulness in LRT. It has been caused by the removal of the heavy hand of the GLC, with all its political pressure, on the body running London's transport.
There are other examples of ways in which the LRT is being helpful. A bridge close to the Hoover factory is used by some of my constituents when they alight from buses on the eastern side of Western avenue in order to reach the other side of the road. There is no other way to cross the road. I have persuaded LRT to create an extra bus stop by the bridge. That request was refused by London Transport under the GLC. Why, I do not know. Elderly and disabled people had to walk or be pushed long distances from another bus stop to the bridge in order to cross the road. Now, because of the new bus stop provided by LRT, buses stop at the bridge. That is very helpful.
In Mandeville road a new bus stop is needed for the No. 187 at the point where a number of disabled people live. I was unable for many years to obtain approval for a bus stop. However, I have succeeded in persuading the LRT to establish a request stop for a trial period of three months. It was established two days ago, and the trial period is to begin soon. Helpfulness of this kind is such a new phenomenon of transport in London, in particular for buses, that it is worth mentioning. I welcome it warmly. These are solid, true examples. I am not mucking about, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did.

Mr. Corbyn: That is a shocking allegation.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Member mucked about at times during his speech. For most of the time it was a serious and important speech.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: I have not given way so far, and I do not intend to do so on this occasion. I may give way in a moment.
There is another important aspect of London's transport to which I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend — the point at which children are charged adult fares. Last week I spoke at a brains trust for young people. They asked the important question, whether full fares should be paid at the age of 14, as now, or at the age of 18 when young people become adults. I believe they made a reasonable point when they asked whether the full fare could be deferred until the age of 18, when they pass into adulthood in legal terms, although I appreciate that they may take up a full fare seat.
There have been leaflet deliveries from the GLC—as usual, at the expense of the ratepayer and taxpayer — trying to frighten people into believing that fares have gone up by more than is the case. It is clear from inquiries that those leaflets have been totally inaccurate. The GLC must answer for that sort of inaccurate political advertising on the rates, because it is absolutely deplorable.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to level charges of serious inaccuracy against a public body such as the GLC, and then pass on to another subject without stating where such inaccuracy occurred and what it was based upon?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Allegations of inaccuracies in relation to all kinds of organisations are regularly made in this place. I have heard nothing out of order so far, tedious though it may be.

Mr. Greenway: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having slept through previous speeches, I take your point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I may have found the speeches very tedious and may have been inclined to drop off, but I assure the House that I did not.

Mr. Greenway: I was referring not to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but to other hon. Members. I am reminded of Lord Harcourt—thought to be a very good speaker—of whom it was said that he got so bored during his own speeches that he yawned. I fancy that there have been one or two yawns this evening.

Mr. Jessel: Has my hon. Friend heard tell of the noble Member in the other place who dreamt he was making a speech, woke up, and found that he was?

Mr. Greenway: Yes, I have heard of that noble Lord, but I do not know who he was. He has never been identified.
LRT's current ban on smoking ought to be considered carefully. I am a non-smoker, and have been for many years. However, there has been a substantial number of protests from smokers and non-smokers alike, who feel that there should be some provision for people to smoke if they wish to do so, even though they should realise that they are injuring themselves. People should have the right to choose whether or not to smoke. The fact that LRT has adopted the GLC's autocratic attitude over this matter has, I know, caused considerable irritation to many travellers.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure it was not the hon. Gentleman's intention, but he has misled the House. It was the new LRT authority, not the GLC, which banned smoking on London Transport trains.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. The House is regularly misled about all kinds of things.

Mr. Greenway: I understand that the GLC introduced a partial ban, which is what I said, and that LRT has introduced a 100 per cent. ban, which is also what I said. I do not think I was inaccurate, and in no way did I intend to mislead the House.
Many things in relation to London Transport ought to be looked at, and I hope that they will be. The bus service continues to be irregular. Fleets of buses come at once, and as a result people face long waits. That problem ought to be tackled. It has occurred for many years, although it has improved slightly recently. I hope that yet more work will be done to solve that problem.
The irresponsible and disgraceful GLC campaign on pensioners' passes is now behind us. However, I remind the House that the GLC spent £5 million of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money—

Mr. Corbyn: It was successful, though.

Mr. Greenway: —alleging that pensioners and the disabled would lose their passes when the GLC was abolished. It was never intended that those passes would be lost. I remind the House that, for the first time ever, pensioners' passes and passes for the disabled and blind have been guaranteed in law by this Government. No Labour Government ever did that, and neither did any Lib-Lab pact.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Greenway: Socialist Members should remember that this Conservative Government have guaranteed pensioners' passes. The Labour Government did nothing like that, and Labour Members are now jealous.
Fraud on London Transport is now being tackled, and it needs to be tackled. I welcome that.

Mr. Bidwell: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that under the new LRT body we shall see more buses in our area? Has he been acquainted with the proposal to close the Southall bus garage, which serves his area, and the fact that many workers fear that they face the sack? Are any of the hon. Gentleman's constituents involved? I imagine they are.

Mr. Greenway: In fact, under LRT there have been more buses in my constituency. There is a problem in that the No. 187, which will be known to the hon. Gentleman, has been re-routed — unhelpfully, from a constituency point of view. Some of that unhelpfulness has been overcome by the LRT board, but given its current helpful attitude, I hope that we shall get things completely right in the end. I believe that we shall.
There is also a need to look at ticketing. LRT should look at the possibility of introducing the French carnet, so that tickets are interchangeable between bus and underground transport. That is enormously helpful in France. Perhaps the possibility of flat-rate fares could be looked at again. Much progress has been made in that direction. I hope that even more can be made, because it will be helpful to the people of London.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I hope that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) will forgive me if I do not immediately take up his remarks, but in a moment I shall comment on what he said about pensioners' bus passes. I apologise to the Secretary of State for the fact that I was not in my place during his opening speech. I spent two hours this afternoon with a constituent and was unable to be in the Chamber.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the fact that I have already heard from the chairman of LRT in response to two issues that I raised in our recent debate on the Ways and Means resolution. I said that a bus service in my constituency, which connected with a large mental hospital in the neighbouring area of Redbridge, was to stop running on Sundays. That is still happening, but I have been assured by the chairman of LRT, Dr. Bright, that the position could be reviewed in due course. He said that he would keep an eye on it. That will be of some comfort—although not as much as would be the case if the bus service were restored—and I am delighted to have heard from Dr. Bright in those terms.
I also spoke of the use of one-man buses in London. Again I have received a reply from Dr. Bright, and it is praiseworthy that it should have come so quickly. I do not altogether agree with the direction that LRT is taking, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) pointed out, one-man operation carries dangers for people using such buses, given that only one LRT employee rather than two will be on duty. We shall have to watch this carefully.
The Secretary of State, and indeed the Leader of the House, should note that we ought to have an annual debate on LRT. Had the GLC continued to control London

Transport, there were ways and means whereby the democratically elected GLC councillors could discuss the problems and raise issues in a public forum at least once a year, if not more frequently, when they debated the reports of the transport committee. That will not be possible now that the Secretary of State is in control of London Regional Transport unless the Government are willing to allow an annual debate which will at least give London Members — some of whom have taken part in the debate, but by no means all; they number 83 — a chance to air the views of their constituents about the services provided by London Regional Transport, about fares and so on. That would be only one day in the parliamentary year which would be far less time than was devoted by GLC councillors to the control and discussion of the affairs of London Regional Transport, but it would be something. At the moment we have no guarantee, as I understand it, of having a regular debate on London Regional Transport.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North gave a distorted view of what happened about pensioners' bus passes. I remind him and the House that the pledge to abolish the GLC was inserted in the Conservative party election manifesto in 1983 not long before the campaign started. We know that from a speech made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in a debate before Christmas. That pledge had not been thought out and had not been through the proper policy committees.
The pledge said nothing about the future of pensioners' bus passes. Indeed, I was tackled by a pensioner couple in my constituency in the first week of the campaign who said that the Conservatives intended, if re-elected, to abolish the GLC and they wanted to know what would happen to their bus and tube passes. I did not know. I read the Conservative manifesto, but there was nothing in it about that. Pensioners were entitled to be alarmed about the future if and when the GLC was abolished.
No statements were made by Government representatives on that issue during the 1983 general election campaign. In the following six to nine months, pensioners, aided by the GLC, organised protest meetings, deputations and petitions. This may not have happened in Ealing, North, but it happened in most other parts of London. Pensioners were worried stiff that they were likely to lose their bus and tube passes, that they might have to pay a lot of money for them or that they might be made more restrictive and would not be of as much use. As a result of all that pressure, the Secretary of State was forced to concede. It is nice for the hon. Member for Ealing, North to make a virtue of necessity, but the statutory provision was forced on the Government by pensioner power from outside. It was not given gratuitiously.

Mr. Terry Dicks: The hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong. The facts are clear. Three or four of my hon. Friends brought pressure on my right hon. Friend during the Committee stage of the London Regional Transport Bill in 1984 to make this concession. It was not made as a result of pressure, although most right hon. and hon. Members received petitions and letters from pensioners. I assure the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) that the concession was made not because of that but after careful consideration by my right hon. Friend who, after


consultation with his civil servants, decided to bring in the scheme. With great respect, the hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong.

Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman has made an important political point. He has said that the Government ignored pressure from pensioners in London—

Mr. Dicks: rose—

Mr. Deakins: Other hon. Members on both sides wish to speak. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I may give way to other hon. Members in due course, but I wish to make some other remarks.
I was just taking up the remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, North and putting the record straight. Without the pensioner pressure, in my view and in the opinion of most people of London, the concession would not have been made to put the scheme on a statutory basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has described this as a squalid Bill. The deteriorating economic position is affecting the background against which we must consider the £250 million which is being transferred compulsorily from the GLC to London Regional Transport. The country is in a devastated economic state. In spite of all the Government's promises and optimism, the economic position is deteriorating greatly, as evinced by the exchange rate not merely against the dollar but against other currencies. The fall in the exchange rate has led the Government to push up interest rates drastically. They have admitted that, so I am not making a point that people could disagree with. Interest rates have gone up substantially in the past few months because the exchange rate has deteriorated as a result of the country's general economic performance under this Government.
High interest rates are likely to be around for some time. They affect the GLC and LRT because both are public bodies and they have to borrow money. In both cases it is the ratepayers of London who will have to pay the economic consequences of the foolish monetarist policies of the Government. Interest rates are higher in real terms than they have ever been. That will affect the ability of LRT and the GLC, certainly until 1 April 1986, to conduct their business efficiently and effectively. No public body could operate effectively in the economic climate that has been created by the Government.
In passing, I mention that the cost of the miners' strike is likely to be £4 billion to £5 billion. That is the background to this squalid little Bill. The economy is getting out of control. There are a number of examples. The Government are rapidly losing grip. They are grubbing around in this silly little Bill to find an extra £50 million from the GLC to fund not merely this year's operations of LRT but other parts of its activities in future. Against the cost of the miners' strike and the high interest rates that are a burden on the economy it is almost footling to be talking about all stages of the Bill, Second Reading, Committee stage, and Third Reading—I am not sure whether it will have to go to the House of Lords; I assume that it may not because it is a money Bill—having to go through urgently because the Government got their sums wrong last year.
This squalid little Bill is part of the Government attack on the GLC. The Government are planning to get rid of the GLC, as we all know. They are also robbing the citizens of London of the chance, through the GLC, of

controlling the operations of London Regional Transport. I have already said that we need an annual debate. This has been an unexpected debate because the Bill was not foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech, even under the heading of other legislation, because the issue had not arisen. Once this Bill has gone through, there will be no future occasion, unless the Government or the Opposition give up a half day, to debate the affairs of LRT, one of the world's greatest passenger transport authorities which is of great interest to the 7 million people in London.
Not content with attacking the GLC by removing control of London transport, the Government are planning to abolish that very popular democratic body. The Government have done themselves a disservice because they have made the GLC the popular democratic body that it is. Indeed, I think they will see an adverse reaction from the people of London—obviously I cannot speak for the rest of the country, because people there may not be interested in the affairs of London—in the local council elections in London boroughs next year and in the general election, when it comes.

Mr. Colin Moynihan: How can the hon. Gentleman equate what he has just said with two substantial swings to the Conservative party in by-elections to Lewisham council in recent months, including a major swing to the Conservatives in a strongly held Labour ward in December of last year?

Mr. Deakins: I know nothing about the internal politics of that council. I assume that it is a Conservative council.

Mr. Moynihan: It is Labour.

Mr. Deakins: I am afraid I cannot answer that, because I know only north London. Although I once lived at the Elephant and Castle, affairs south of the river are much stranger to me than those north of the Thames.
In spite of the hon. Gentleman's optimism about Lewisham, there can be significant local factors in wards in by-elections, as we all know. When the elections take place in London next year issues such as the abolition of the GLC and the removal of democratic control of London Regional Transport from the people of London through their elected representatives will figure largely in the way people vote.
The Bill is only one part of the Conservative attack on local government. Rate capping will be debated again tomorrow. We have seen rate support grant cuts which will once more raise rates in London in particular, but also in the Tory shire counties. It will be interesting to see how people vote in the shire county elections this year. It would also have been interesting to see the way in which the people of London would have voted in GLC elections this year had not the Government abolished those elections because they feared the results, whatever they may say to the contrary.
There is more to come in this attack on local government. Indeed, if they are not careful the Government will soon be running local government. They say that they do not want to do that, but the effect of their actions in strangling local government and imposing an ideological and bureaucratic stranglehold on it will be to ensure that local government is run not by elected councillors with officials responsible to them but by


officials responsible to officials in Whitehall. No Minister, however much grasp he has of detail, can keep a grip on the whole of local government.
We are supposed to have in power the party of law and order. I shall not repeat the content of earlier speeches, except to say that we have in this measure a sorry tale of haste and arrogance on the part of the Secretary of State, which last year led to the Court's view to which reference has been made.
One issue in the court judgment was the fact that there had been no consultation with the GLC. Why, when sums as enormous as £250 million and more are involved, was there no such consultation? While there may not have been a statutory duty to have consultations, one would have thought that they would have taken place. It would have been prudent of any Government to consult an authority as large as the GLC, whatever the council's politics, as part of the democratic process in London, especially between one elected body and another.

Mr. Dicks: Will the hon. Gentleman say why, with the abolition of the GLC just around the corner, the GLC is refusing to talk to Conservative London boroughs about the arrangements that must be made? If consultation is good one way, it should be good the other.

Mr. Deakins: When one is under threat of abolition it is a different matter. I am talking about consultation between the Secretary of State as the Minister concerned and the GLC. The circumstances are different and circumstances alter cases. As part of the democratic process, the right hon. Gentleman should have consulted the GLC. I grant that Parliament is supreme, but the GLC represents the interests and needs of Londoners, particularly in relation to their travel arrangements
We are talking about the future of London Regional Transport and it is clear that the Government are moving towards privatisation. We are bound to wonder what the future holds for those who use the buses and tubes in London. Already competition is in prospect. The management of LRT has taken that on board, but it seems to be over-sanguine about the effects of competition.
It is one thing to have competition which, on routes which are not at present served by LRT, brings feeder flows of people on to main bus and tube routes from which LRT then benefits. It is another to have competition directly between so-called pirate buses — or private buses, as I suppose we shall have to learn to call them — and LRT buses. That prospect should appal Londoners, and I hope that it will appal LRT as well.
The background to the Bill lies in the Government setting unrealistic financial targets for LRT. That is typical of this Government, who are setting financial targets for many public sector bodies which are not merely unrealistic but which are designed to raise prices to the consumers so that the Government can cream off profits from those public sector bodies.
That has happened in the gas industry, in which domestic consumers are having to pay a tax. Some days ago we debated the water industry and it was made clear that consumers in London will be paying a 10 per cent. increase in their water rates this year when the board of the Thames water authority wanted only a 3 per cent. increase.

That 10 per cent. increase has been forced on that authority by the Government in their determination to tax one of the basic commodities of the people.
The setting of external financial targets in an arbitrary fashion, of which the Secretary of State for Transport is an ardent advocate, is one more means by which the Government are indirectly taxing the British people on commodities which have not previously borne a tax. The electorate will bear that in mind at the next general election.
The money with which we are concerned tonight—or at least £200 million of it—may be necessary under the Transport Bill for the operations of London Transport. However, it has already had a 9 per cent. fares increase and one hopes that in future LRT will restrict its increases to the rate of inflation.
The Government are interfering more and more in the public sector. This measure interferes with the rights of the GLC, whose actions in this matter have been backed up by a decision of the High Court, and the Bill must be regarded as a piece of retrospective legislation.

Mr. Dicks: The hon. Gentleman hopes that future fares increases will be linked to the rate of inflation. Does he intend to encourage his trade union friends to restrict their pay claims to LRT to the rate of inflation?

Mr. Deakins: I have never interfered, as a Member of this House, with pay claims. In any event, the hon. Gentleman should accept that what matters are not claims but settlements, and settlements are made between managements and unions. I am not here as a surrogate GLC Member debating the internal affairs of London Transport. I am here as a London Member questioning the Secretary of State about the overall operations of London Transport and the affects of the Bill on those. Whether or not we have an annual debate on the operations of LRT, as I hope we shall, I trust that we shall not go into the nitty-gritty of the type of matters raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) but will debate the major issues of policy concerning the future of bus and tube services in London.
I will not refer to certain remarks made by the Minister because other hon. Members have dealt with those. Suffice it to say that the Minister has misled the House. He is a Minister in an authoritarian Government, and yesterday we debated the actions of Ministers in misleading the House of Commons. With such a large majority, they think that they can get away with it. There was a time—before I arrived in this place, in the 1950s, 1960s and earlier—when it was considered honourable for Ministers to resign on matters of principle or when they had misled the House. I fear that, under this Conservative Government with their large majority, those days are past and that we can no longer expect Ministers to resign, either on matters of principle or when caught, so to speak, in flagrante delicto.
The Bill is not necessary. The ratepayers and taxpayers of London will be paying for no better service, a service which will be under increasing financial pressure from the Government in their effort to reduce the amount of public subsidy to LRT. Indeed, that has been admitted by the Government.
What does the future hold for LRT? Are we to have higher fares, lower subsidies and gradually worse bus services? There are some signs of that happening already.


I hope that they are not early warning signs and that we shall be able to retrieve the situation. Or will it be a future in which fares rise roughly in line with inflation and in which bus services, in particular, improve—remembering that many people, particularly pensioners, use bus services for local journeys—as happened when the GLC was in control?
The remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, North were a travesty of the true position of four years of GLC control of London transport. We should retain the GLC, restore control of LRT to it and, above all, have a different Government so that we are never again faced with a squalid little Bill such as this.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I support the Bill. I am one of those hon. Members who was much maligned earlier in the debate. However, I have been largely, if not totally, dependent on London Transport public services for most of my life, certainly since I was aged six or seven. I speak perhaps with a longer perspective than some Opposition Members who have addressed themselves to the subject.
In recent years I have noticed a distinct deterioration in the service provided by LT. There has been increased uncertainty about the schedules of buses and tube trains. Passengers have experienced long waits and frequent cancellation of services without any warning and, the ultimate insult, having waited for an hour or more for a bus, of three or four ariving in convoy. This has been common in the past four or five years. I admit that there have been improvements in the last two or three years. However, over a period of 10 years the public transport service in London has been unsatisfactory and passengers and potential passengers have rightly made their feelings known.
When I was a member of the GLC, although I did not serve on its transport committee I received innumerable representations from my constituents in Dulwich who live in a part of south-east London particularly ill-served by public transport services. Coupled with the general sense of uncertainty, long delays, cancellation and bunching, was the low morale of the staff and lack of confidence of the passengers. To an observer this would have appeared to be a thoroughly demoralised service. The record of GLC involvement in recent years has done nothing to improve the situation; in fact, the reverse is the case. The GLC in the last few years has been Luddite and reactionary in its approach to any innovative ideas. Indeed, I think that this has helped to intensify the downward spiral of demoralisation in the service.
Against this background, in the 1983 general election I found myself fighting in an area in which there was a great desire for some change in London Transport arrangements for public transport in that part of London. The opportunity that the Government have taken to make improvements to set the public transport arrangements on a proper line has been welcomed.
With the formation of LRT there has been a realisation of the necessity for an integration of transport services in London. We have noted a greater co-operation between British Rail and LRT in ensuring that those who make use of their services in a single journey enjoy a better integration than hitherto existed. There is the will to integrate, and that goes a long way towards making a more effective and efficient travel organisation.
Secondly, there is a realisation of the necessity for a greater flexibility in the provision of transport services. My constituency is served by a bus which is very dear to those who use it, the P4 bus. This bus fulfils a social as well as a practical role. It provides transport for many who would not otherwise be able to reach the major shopping centres such as Brixton from the more remote parts of the area. The bus provides an important and necessary social service. However, for most of the day the bus has only a handful of passengers. The service could equally well be provided, not by the single-decker 53-seater bus, but by something smaller and more adaptable which can stop with greater ease to pick up the elderly on a difficult road without causing a major hold-up or pile-up. It is a question of the will to take the opportunity to respond to the need, to recognise the need of people to make use of public transport in London and to provide an adaptable and flexible approach to meet that need. That is something that London Transport has not done satisfactorily in the past but which I see it doing in the future.

Mr. John Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman urging that the P4 bus route, which runs through both our constituencies, should be privatised? Does he not understand that the quite large P4 bus is provided for reasons of economy, because it helps neither London Transport nor any other transport system to duplicate the number of buses, and the bus that runs on the route in question is perfectly satisfactory?

Mr. Bowden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is my personal friend and neighbour, for making that point. However, I cannot accept that to run a big bus carrying a handful of people is more cost-effective and cheaper than to run a small bus carrying the same number of people. Such economics bedevilled the London Transport Executive in the past and the GLC members who were responsible for giving it guidance and direction. The bus is a much valued and needed facility in the locality. I cannot say that I think that it was provided as the result of direction from the GLC. It was rather a response by the professional management of the London Transport Executive which brought the service into being.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Those feeder services were introduced as a requirement by the GLC.

Mr. Bowden: They were introduced by the London Transport Executive, which I agree took its guidance from the GLC, in policy directives at the time. If we follow the line taken by Opposition Members that there was some semblance of democratic accountability by the members of the GLC, then they were responding to a need and there was some element of need, which was recognised in that case.

Mr. John Fraser: When Mr. Sam Silkin was the Member for Dulwich, a proposal was made by London Transport Executive to cut out the P4 service. It was saved only by the pressure put upon a willing GLC. The hon. Gentleman's constituents and my constituents have to thank the GLC for that and not the LTE.

Mr. Bowden: I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point because I was the GLC member for Dulwich when Mr. Sam Silkin was the Member for Dulwich, and I led the pressure from Dulwich to ensure that the P4 service remained. I was conscious at that time


that there was no unwillingness on the part of the LTE to accept the point. It was prepared to investigate any such issue and was receptive to the representations which were made by me at the time.
Perhaps we have exhausted the possibilities of making political capital out of the P4 bus, although I am grateful for the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman has given me to expand on the matter.
I welcome the Bill because it clarifies an obscure passage in the Act. When the Bill was considered in Committee, there was a clear indication and determination of what the will of Parliament was to be. Sad to say, by some slip or an unanticipated amendment, this was not made crystal clear in the drafting of the legislation. I am conscious that the GLC, by creative accounting, has sought to exploit a technical inadequacy in the Act and therefore has attempted to deprive the ratepayers of London of the money that has been contributed to LRT and of the transport services which that payment represents. The Bill seeks to clarify that point and to ensure that the will of Parliament and of the electorate is properly reflected in parliamentary legislation, and that the deficiency, if deficiency there be, in the High Court ruling on the Act can be eradicated and rectified.
For this reason, I give wholehearted support to the Bill, recognising that in the ultimate it will improve public transport services for those who live and work in London.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I apologise to the Secretary of State for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate when he spoke. I had other pressing business to attend to. However, I have checked with colleagues as to what he said, and I am assured that I did not miss very much.
I should like to correct one or two errors of fact by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who is not here, and the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan). The hon. Member for Ealing, North talked about pensioners' bus passes. That issue was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins). The fact is that right from the time of the last general election, there was enormous concern by pensioners all over London about what was to happen to their bus passes in the event of the GLC and London Transport going the way that the Government wanted them to go. That pressure worked. It obviously worked on one or two Conservative Members, because they realised that their seats were in danger and responded to that pressure from their pensioners.

Mr. Dicks: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. We were aware that the Secretary of State wanted to give responsibility to the boroughs. The reason for the change that was made in Committee was that we were not convinced of the strength and ability of the London boroughs to meet what the Secretary of State thought would be their responsibility. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that the clause was introduced to make the change. The change was not made in response to major pressure from pensioners, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, although, of course, we were aware of such pressure.

Mr. Dubs: It is difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, because I was certainly aware of enormous feeling on the part of pensioners all over London. If the hon. Gentleman says that he and his Government were prepared to ignore the feeling of pensioners and brought in the change for some other reason, so be it. However, the fact is that that was an excellent example of how the feeling of and pressure from pensioners brought about a change in Government thinking. The original commitments that were obtained from the Government were pretty weak and, as the pressure mounted, the Government felt that they had to do something. That is my interpretation.

Mr. Don Dixon: Does my hon. Friend recall that on Second Reading of the London Regional Transport Bill two Conservative Members asked the Secretary of State for Transport to write a clause into the Bill to safeguard concessionary fares for pensioners in London, and the Secretary of State categorically refused on both occasions?

Mr. Dubs: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me and the House of that important point.
The second thing that the hon. Member for Ealing, North said that was surprising—he did not allow me to intervene when he said it and now he has scarpered—was that he felt that when London Transport came under the GLC, it was not responsive to pressure from hon. Members, and since it has ceased to be under the GLC, it has suddenly become very responsive. What he said does not reflect my experience, nor does it reflect the experience of anyone to whom I have spoken.
Of course, over the years we always wanted London Transport to be more responsive, but I have detected no increase in accountability since London Transport was taken away from the GLC; indeed, rather the reverse. There is now no longer the possibility of political pressure being exerted on the GLC which, in turn, would reflect itself in the nature of transport policies. Political pressure means the wish of people in London to have a better and more efficient transport system, which we began to achieve while the GLC was in charge of London Transport. Such pressure is no longer possible since the change in arrangements.

Mr. Moynihan: rose—

Mr. Dubs: I shall give way just once more, because other hon. Members want to speak.

Mr. Moynihan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is not my experience that no political pressure is being applied. On the contrary, on several occasions I have intervened as the political representative for my constituency to improve a service. On one occasion a bus stop was placed outside the house where a disabled person in my constituency lives, and it was highly inconvenient for that individual, who came to see me. I made representations immediately. LRT's sensitivity was put into practice straight away. That bus stop was moved within not months but hours of that complaint being made.

Mr. Dubs: The fact is that the present set-up in London Regional Transport is not democratically accountable. When the GLC was in charge, the system was democratically accountable. There seems to be a world of


difference, even if the hon. Gentleman and others can exercise influence over cases of particular bus stops or shelters.
An error of fact was expounded by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East when he referred to two council by-elections in Lewisham. He was talking about the reaction of Londoners to changes in the GLC and London Transport. If he looks at the facts of local government election results throughout London since the last general election, he will see that his party has been consistently losing out and that we in the Labour party have been doing better. I refer him to election results in Lambeth, Wandsworth and even in the London borough of Barnet, in the Prime Minister's own constituency, when a safe Conservative seat was won by the Labour candidate. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the results over the past year and a half and then he will see—

Mr. Moynihan: What about Lewisham?

Mr. Dubs: I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the results. It may well be that in one London borough there were two results that went against the general trend, but overall the hon. Gentleman cannot substantiate his case, even if he wants to go on shouting at me.
I am concerned about the Bill and the basis on which it is being put forward by the Secretary of State. I am reminded of many years ago when there was a poster campaign. I cannot remember the context, but the poster went something like this, "It is not your fault that Britain"—

Mr. Jessel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dubs: I shall not give way now.
The poster said, "It is not your fault that Britain's going down the drain. It's the person standing next to you." Members of the Cabinet could well take a leaf out of that book and, when they go to the next Cabinet meeting, might say, as no doubt they have been doing, "Prime Minister, it's not my fault that the Government are going down the drain. It's the Minister next to me."
A series of disasters is striking the Government and a series of excuses is being given. If it is not one Minister blaming another, it is Ministers blaming civil servants. Yesterday was a pretty unedifying spectacle, when two senior Ministers were saying that it was not their fault but the fault of one individual civil servant. The Secretary of State has made a monstrous error in his legislation, or his interpretation of the legislation, and he is pretending that he is not culpable. He has quite a lot to answer for.
The Secretary of State individually seems to have blundered from one disaster to another. There are more important things for us to debate in transport matters than a Bill that should never have been introduced because it was unnecessary. I should like to remind the House of the more important transport matters that should be before us rather than this measure. There is the question of Stansted airport, which is still unresolved. There is the quality of London transport, the increasing fares that are now being introduced and the effect that that will have on Londoners. There is the enormous concern throughout London about schemes to trunk roads in London. In my constituency, there is a proposal that the south circular road should be trunked, meaning that extra traffic would be sucked in through residential areas. There is even discussion of a new bridge across the Thames. I doubt whether that will

happen, but it is being contemplated. That bridge would take the extra traffic created by the Secretary of State's transport schemes across from Chelsea and Kensington, through my constituency and on southwards. We have the whole question of the competence and integrity underlying the measure now before us.
Other hon. Members have already referred briefly to the history of events. If the Secretary of State had not been in such great haste to introduce the order under section 49 despite the warnings from the GLC—that GLC that was not consulted by the Secretary of State — all the difficulties today would have been prevented. Indeed, the basis for the £50 million which the Secretary of State is seeking to get back from the GLC would not have applied had the original fares structure been maintained and had there not been anxiety to impose extra fare increases on Londoners, plus some reduction in bus mileage. It seems to me that both elements have contributed to this £50 million.
If London Transport had come directly under the GLC it would not have been a problem because money that was raised by the GLC from the ratepayers of London could easily have been used for other London purposes. But now that is not going to happen.
The real tragedy for Londoners is that this is what is occupying the House and the Secretary of State rather than the fact that London transport is under-funded and when most major cities in the world are improving their public transport systems we in London are seeing attempts to increase fares and drive passengers off the buses and tubes, so that we are going back to ever lower standards of public transport. Heaven knows, my constituents complain enough to me already about the infrequency of public transport in London.
Turning to a matter which was covered partly by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) — the need for the safety and security of passengers travelling on London transport and the security of the staff of London Transport, whether drivers, or conductors or at London underground stations —I and other hon. Members know just what the difficulties are for the staff and how the shortage of staff at London Transport stations, for example, means that those on duty are vulnerable to the attacks of criminals and other wrong doers.
One particular difficulty that faces London Transport staff is what happens at football matches or on the way to and from football matches. I note that by a mischance for London Transport staff tomorrow evening Wimbledon are going to be at home to West Ham United in a fifth round FA cup replay and that Chelsea are going to be playing Sunderland in the return leg of the semi-final of the Milk cup. This means that some parts of the London transport system, particularly the District line and Fulham Broadway station, may have as many as four different sets of football supporters travelling through that station at the same time. I shudder to think what the consequences will be.
Tomorrow evening may be an exceptional occasion — I hope that it is — but the safety and security of ordinary London Transport passengers are prejudiced by the pressure on the system on occasions like this, and also by the staffing shortages, the sheer lack of numbers of staff to cope with the situation.
London Transport is not the sort of transport system that Londoners wish to have, or can be proud of. Years ago we


had, without doubt, the best public transport system in the world. People from other countries came to London and said how good, efficient and inexpensive our system was. We have come a long way since then towards having a system that does not match up to the earlier standards. We had a brave effort to improve things in the brief period when the present GLC was in charge of London Transport. Alas, the clock has now been turned back and Londoners will be increasingly sorry and dismayed at what has happened.
I hope that before too long we shall have a different Government in charge of transport arrangement in London and in the country as a whole so that we may have a type of transport in our capital city of which Londoners can again be proud — a modern, fast system, frequent services and low fares.
When we have that, we shall begin to solve the problem of too much traffic on London's roads and problems on London's roads which cannot easily be met because of the number of motor cars. If we have the sort of efficient system we want we shall, as in other cities, particularly Paris, get people back on to public transport in increasing numbers, and that will be a system of which the capital can be proud. I hope that that day soon comes.

Mr. Toby Jessel: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) talked about the clock being turned back on London transport; but my own postbag, which is a large one, from an articulate area in outer London which includes a very high proportion of retirement pensioners, shows a reduction in the number of complaints about London transport since last summer when it ceased to be run by the GLC. Hitherto, I have had something like 10 or 15 complaints a year about bus services, but in the last six months I can remember only two or three. It seems to me that most people either have not noticed any difference in the running of the services of London transport or have noticed an improvement.

Mr. Moynihan: I, too, have seen a decrease in the number of complaints in my postbag on London Regional Transport. Would my hon. Friend agree also that in the past nine months we have seen an improvement in morale, as I have found in the Catford bus garage, which serves my constituency, as well as increased efficiency, greater sensitivity on routeing and, above all, an improvement in the level of service provided for the local residents?

Mr. Jessel: I believe that that is right. London Regional Transport, in seeking to serve the public in Greater London and to provide a better service, is now less inhibited by the constraints that applied before.
I regret that no hon. Member of either the Social Democratic or Liberal parties has been in the Chamber for several hours. For two parties that claim to care about transport and the environment not to put in a show for several hours — although they have 25 members — is disgraceful. I hope that the House will take note of that.
The Bill provides for £258,179,588 subsidy to LRT. Evidently someone has worked that out with great precision. I understand that that is the amount for the year, and it is a very large sum. With a population of 6·5 million in Greater London, that figure averages some £40 for every

man, woman and child, and well over £100 per average household. Yet some hon. Members want that subsidy to be higher still.
We must strike a balance; we must try to be fair. One quarter of all the users of London transport do not live or pay rates within Greater London — either they are commuters coming from outside the boundaries of Greater London and the provinces, or they are foreigners. The greater the subsidy by Greater London ratepayers, the more unfair it is on them — and they include the business ratepayers, whose rates are a tax on jobs. As we all know, too heavy a rate demand upon businesses threatens their survival and threatens jobs.
The House should note another unfairness, which derives from a geographical imbalance. Although half of the subsidy goes to buses, which are evenly distributed geographically, the other half goes to the underground, which is far from evenly distributed. A map of the London underground shows clearly that well over 80 per cent.—perhaps 85 per cent. — of all London underground stations are north of the River Thames, with only a tiny minority to the south. For historic reasons, there is a network of non-underground railways in the south, the south-east and the south-west — mainly the southern region of British Rail. Therefore, far fewer residents from the south, south-east or south-west use the underground. If the burden is evenly distributed through all quarters of both outer and inner London, that means a subsidy from householders south of London for those to the north of London.
There is no underground station in Twickenham, but there are seven British Rail southern region stations. They all go to Waterloo. A minority of my constituents change at Richmond or Wimbledon to the underground service, but the majority who commute to central London — whether to the City or the west end—do not change to the underground until they are in central London, either at Vauxhall, or mainly at Waterloo. Most commuters make the bulk of their journey on southern region trains. The same is true for commuters from the rest of the south, south-east and south-west of London. That is what lay behind Bromley council's case against the GLC. The greater the subsidy to London's transport, the greater the injustice. It is entirely wrong that a subsidy which is drawn evenly from ratepayers on all sides of London should be any larger. The Opposition have not taken sufficient account of that argument, although they have historically sought to be concerned with fairness.
Bus passes for old-age pensioners are quite a different matter, as each borough will impose a rate evenly throughout its area to finance such a pass. I am aware of the argument that old-age pensioners would be treated more fairly if their pensions were higher and if there were not subsidies for certain areas of expenditure, such as transport or heating; or in the old days, for tobacco. I recognise the strength of that argument, but the fact remains that pensioners in London are used to having a free Travelcard and there would be widespread disappointment if it were no longer available. I hope that my right hon. Friend will enable the scheme to continue.
I am glad to support the Bill.

Mr Roger Stott: I have served on the Committee of every major Transport Bill since 1980 and, having listened to the turgid remarks of the few


Conservative Members who have turned up today, I am glad that I was not on this one. For my sins, I have had to read most of the relevant copies of Hansard to familiarise myself with the discussions between my right hon. and hon. Friends and the Secretary of State.
We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. As the Member of Parliament for Wigan, I have found it interesting just to sit and listen. I should like to re-emphasise what many of my hon. Friends have said—that the Secretary of State's actions, judgment and activities in the past few weeks have brought us to this sorry state of affairs. The Secretary of State is in the dock in the high court of Parliament.
My hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) mounted an assault on the London Regional Transport Bill in Committee. They made it clear that we opposed, root and branch, the transfer of powers from the GLC transport committee to some Government-controlled quango, especially as it would be controlled by the Secretary of State, at least temporarily. In Committee, my hon. Friends continually warned the Secretary of State of the folly of pursuing such a course, but the Secretary of State knew best. With characteristic intuitive judgment, he plotted his course and ran straight on to the rocks. He is making a habit of doing that, and has of late made several excursions in that direction. To extricate himself from the product of his own incompetence he has had to resort to the shameful practice of introducing what can only be described as retrospective legislation. My hon. Friends have concentrated their remarks specifically on what is contained in the Bill. I shall reinforce at length what they said because this is our last chance to try and get through to the right hon. Gentleman.
The Bill requires the GLC to pay LRT £258 million in the remaining part of 1984–85—that is the initial year after the transfer of control of LT to the Secretary of State for Transport. Since the GLC has already paid £177 million, the Bill requires it to pay £81·1 million, either in two instalments, if the Bill is passed on or before 25 June, or in a single instalment, if the Bill is passed thereafter. The transfer of control of LT took place during the financial year 1984–85, and after the GLC had approved grants to LT and set its precept in March last year.
Section 49 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 gives the Secretary of State powers to direct the GLC to pay grants to LRT in the remaining part of the year, after transfer of control on the appointed day under the Act has taken place. The Secretary of State rushed the transfer of control to LRT and, therefore ostensibly to himself, on 29 June, which was only three days after Royal Assent was given to the Bill. On the same day he directed the GLC to pay LRT £281.3 million under section 49 of the Act. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have continually said, he did so without consulting the GLC. He also exceeded the maximum sums permissible under the Act by £10·2 million, and I am informed that he has conceded that error.
In July the GLC informed the Secretary of State that it thought the direction was unlawful, but it continued to make payments to LRT without prejudice so that LRT could maintain its operations. However, on 11 January 1985 when the GLC challenged the Secretary of State in the court, Mr. Justice McNeill held that the Secretary of State had acted
unlawfully, irrationally and procedurally improperly in giving a direction which exceeded his statutory powers.

All hon. Members know that, but it is worth repeating. If that is not a damning indictment of the Secretary of State, I do not know what is. Those are not my words, nor those of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but those of Mr. Justice McNeill.
Initially, on 14 January, the Secretary of State told the House that he intended to appeal, but on 29 January he announced his intention to introduce new legislation, and the Ways and Means resolution that paved the way for this amending Bill was approved by the House on Thursday night. The Bill is undoubtedly unnecessary.
The Secretary of State could quickly and easily have issued a new and, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friends, this time a legal direction under section 49 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 after consultation with the GLC. Had he done so, the judgment and the matters surrounding it would have been fully resolved. The terms of the judgment are clear. They allow the Secretary of State to require the GLC to pay sufficient grant to LRT to meet its operating needs for 1984–85 with the possible exception of the leasing reserve. The Secretary of State told Parliament about section 49. He said:
It is not my intention to take more through the clause than is strictly necessary for running LRT for the year in question, so that it shall not end up with a surplus." — [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 March 1984; c. 1114.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West gave that quotation.
The Bill will require the GLC to pay LRT some £50 million in grants that are surplus to LRT's operating needs this year and next year. Only about half the sum is required for the following year— 1985–86. It will not be fully utilised in the case of the leasing reserve, as I am advised, until 1996. If the £50 million were not paid it would be available to offset the 1985–86 GLC precept. London ratepayers would benefit to the full amount. If the surplus is applied by LRT in 1985–86 and beyond, the maximum ratepayer benefit will be limited to the size of its future contributions — two thirds. The other one third will accrue to the benefit of the taxpayer via the Treasury because the Secretary of State is now in charge of London Regional Transport.
The Bill is, as I and my hon. Friends have said, retrospective in effect. It allows the Secretary of State to escape the consequences of his own unlawful, irrational and procedurally improper actions in administering the law. Contrary to the Secretary of State's assertions in Parliament, Mr. Justice McNeill's judgment was not primarily concerned with the interpretation of section 49, but with the Secretary of State's actions in setting a direction under section 49. What the judge had to say about the right hon. Gentleman's attitude is important. The judge found that the Secretary of State had got his facts wrong. He had not taken into account all the relevant factors, and had
failed to consult the GLC when a promise to do so had been given.
Those are not my words. They are the judge's words. The Bill is not about correcting bad drafting but about the Secretary of State avoiding the consequences of his action in administering the law.
The traveller need not be affected if the Secretary of State takes the necessary action. Although the surplus has been taken into account in the LRT annual business plan for 1985–86, the Secretary of State could compensate it for the loss of grant which would take place if the Bill were


not passed. Had he acted quickly enough he could have recovered two thirds of that from the ratepayers, but the 1985–86 London Regional Transport Rate Levy Order has now been approved so that method is closed. That is in marked contrast to the position that faced the GLC after the Law Lords' judgment in 1981, when the Government refused to act quickly to clarify the law and a doubling of fares and cuts in services followed.
The original direction specified a sum of £281·3 million. The bill specifies a sum of £258·2 million, the difference of £23·1 million being due to the abatement of the £10.2 million error conceded by the Secretary of State and the £12·9 million surplus capital grants. LRT's actual needs in 1984–85 are some £50 million below this — £208 million.
The Secretary of State outlined four separate sums at issue in the debate on the Ways and Means resolution. I apologise to my hon. Friends, but I believe that these points need to be answered and I shall answer them in some detail. I refer first to the error in respect of payments made by the GLC before the appointed day — £10·2 million. The Secretary of State said:
This was a trick — a piece of creative accounting — to enable the GLC to avoid paying what it owed LT in 1983–84.

Mr. Ridley: Hear, hear.

Mr. Stott: The right hon. Gentleman agrees. The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not intend to take that sum now. During the debate he said:
The House should be under no doubt that the GLC has robbed LRT and the ratepayers of this £10·2 million".
In the past, the GLC has paid London Transport on the basis of needs, and it does so now. The sum was not required until 1983–84. The Secretary of State made an error in the amount that he assumed the GLC had paid in 1984–85 before the appointed day. That error could have been avoided if the right hon. Gentleman had consulted the GLC before issuing the directive.
Clearly LRT does not need the £10·2 million, and the Secretary of State does not propose to include it in the sum specified in the Bill. It is nonsense to suggest that the ratepayers are being "robbed". It was clearly in the ratepayers' interests that grants surplus to LRT's needs were not paid over.
I shall deal now with the £12·9 million capital grants surplus to LRT's requirements. An amendment to the GLC's money Bill during its passage through Parliament reduced by £12·9 million the provision for prescribed capital expenditure to be funded by grant from the GLC. That was a Conservative Back-Bench amendment, opposed by the GLC but in line with the Government's policy. By not including the sum in the newly specified figure, the Secretary of State conceded that the GLC should not be required to pay over capital grant that LRT is unable to spend in 1984–85. The sum of £23·1 million is deducted from the originally directed figure of £281·3 million to produce the figure which is now contained in the Bill. I apologise to my hon. Friends for going into this detail, but these are extremely complex matters. I wish that some of the London Conservative Members were here to listen to this explanation, because they would then be able to understand the complexity of the issues and the way in which the Secretary of State is trying to dodge the column by introducing this Bill.
The GLC decided to include £27 million in 1984–85 after the Government had determined the GLC's capital allocation for the year. According to the Secretary of State:
That was another piece of creative accounting deliberately designed to circumvent the controls of the GLC's capital expenditure … the GLC hoped to escape the responsibility for funding more than a tiny fraction of those costs, pushing the rest on to LRT and the hapless ratepayer for future years." — [Official Report, 7 February 1985; Vol. 72, c. 1199–201.]
The GLC decided to use leasing following the impossibly restrictive capital allocations in 1984–85. The GLC submitted its money Bill to Parliament but the Government inisted on a 52 per cent. reduction in capital available for new starts in 1984–85.

Mr. Tony Banks: Absolutely right.

Mr. Stott: The GLC has not budgeted for the sum and has no powers to borrow for it. Leasing is a commonly used practice of other local authorities. The Department of Transport has not denied this. It encouraged the GLC to use leasing in 1984–85. The money will no longer be fully utilised until 1986.
There is one other sum of money involved in this matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the House, and that is the revenue grant that is surplus to LRT's requirements. On this, the Secretary of State said that it would be "intolerable" to abate the payments of grant by the GLC because
It would mean that additional income, which has resulted from improved productivity, better than expected sales of travel cards and from LRT's decision to raise fares earlier this year, would all be handed over to the GLC."—[Official Report, 7 February 1985; Vol. 72, c. 1200.]
That money, he said, would be needed to fund accrued liabilities incurred in the course of turning the business round.
In Committee on the London Regional Transport Bill, the Secretary of State said that he intended to take only what London Transport intended. In the early stages of the debate, he said:
There is perhaps a slight piece of compensation for the GLC, in that if the Government succeed in getting London Transport to make some economies during the rest of the financial year, it will be possible to pass those economies back to the GLC by requiring a reduced contribution."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 24 January 1984; c. 94.]
The surplus, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West pointed out, has not come about through the efforts of the Secretary of State or of LRT, but through increasing fares when the budget was set on the basis of a fares freeze, meeting the cost of British Rail and LRT fares integration by higher charges to travellers rather than by the subsidy budgeted for by the GLC and the success of the GLC's Travelcard scheme.
It is absurd to say that LRT needs the money in 1984–85 because of accrued liabilities, which is what the Secretary of State has told us. LRT's annual business plan shows a surplus of £8 million, and there are no real liabilities but for the provision of future redundancy costs. The GLC does not accept this principle and, in 1983, refused to fund LRT's provisions for surplus staff and bus work reconstruction until final decisions had been taken and the money was needed.
I maintain that the Secretary of State for Transport has on at least two occasions misled the House. He has constantly maintained that, in setting the direction, it was not his intention to create a surplus and I shall weary him again by reference to the Standing Committee Hansard,


col. 1114. However, confidential minutes of a meeting on 6 June between his Department and LRT officials make it clear that they were planning a surplus in 1984–85 by increasing fares in January by 11 per cent., when the GLC had budgeted for a fares freeze and LRT wanted the fare increase to be 6 per cent. In the end, the fare increase was of 9 per cent.
Mr. Justice McNeill said that the Department's officials seemed
more concerned with creating a surplus in 1984/5 to be carried forward, to enable much smaller revenue to be required in 1985/6
than with the careful appraisal of all the relevant facts required when setting the correct figures for the direction. The Secretary of State is on record, on more than one occasion, in Standing Committee and in the House as saying that it was not his intention to create surpluses. Despite that, in this confidential minute, it is clear that his departmental officials and LRT were doing precisely that. That is an absolute disgrace.
Secondly, the Secretary of State made it clear to the House that he intended to appeal, following the judgment. Therefore, he would not respond to questions. The implication was that an appeal had been lodged. In fact, the Secretary of State was at best considering an appeal. In reality, he had probably decided not to appeal. Thus, the Secretary of State avoided answering questions immediately after the judgment by misleading the House about his intentions. He dodged behind the sub judice rule. He was pursued on that point by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East.
The Secretary of State made a number of comments during the Ways and Means debate. These should be refuted. During that debate, the Secretary of State made a wide-ranging attack upon the GLC. The GLC precepted for the sum specifically for LRT in order that it should be paid over to LRT. The payment of precepted grant, regardless of performance and need, is absurd and contrary to all past practice between the GLC and London Transport. The budgeted grants in 1983–84 amounted to £235 million. In the event, the GLC paid only £173 million. The balance went towards offsetting the 1984–85 precept, the ratepayers getting the full benefit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) commented in his very long and interesting speech upon the "Fares Fair" argument. The interpretation of "Fares Fair" by Conservative Members is a complete distortion of the facts. The House of Lords ruled that the "Fares Fair" policy of the GLC was unlawful. As a consequence, doubt was raised about the GLC's powers to pay for concessionary travel. The Government introduced new legislation to provide the necessary statutory powers. The Government did the minimum that was necessary to protect themselves from the embarrassment of the collapse of the concessionary fares scheme and specifically refused to legislate in order to deal with the main issue — the requirement upon London Transport to break even, so far as practicable— and a doubling of fares, together with cuts in services.
The judgment which we have been discussing today did not primarily turn upon an interpretation of the law or upon bad drafting but upon the Secretary of State's exercise of the law. A clear course of action is open to the Secretary of State that would avoid any damaging consequences for the traveller and would be in the positive interests of ratepayers. Those alternatives have been enunciated by the

Opposition throughout the afternoon, but the Secretary of State, with his characteristic stoicism, has chosen completely to ignore any advice.
If the Secretary of State is not prepared to accept my advice or to listen to comments made by Members of the Opposition, perhaps at this late stage he will listen to what was said by the leader of the Conservative Opposition on the GLC, Mr. Alan Greengross. At a transport committee meeting held on 6 February, he said:
The way the Government has handled this matter is very wrong—it has been badly handled. It is very embarrassing for the minority party. There are many Tory MPs in the House of Commons who have reservations about Nicholas Ridley's approach, but the tone of Mr. Judge's remarks (comparing Nicholas Ridley to Hermann Goering), will not assist them to tackle the Government. The Council"—
that is the Greater London Council—
should stick to the very strong professional reasons set out in the report in conducting its case, because the Government has made a complete"—
I had better stop there, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the rest is what would be described as unparliamentary language.
I return, finally, to what I said at the beginning of my speech: that the Secretary of State was warned during the Standing Committee proceedings that in exercising his powers under section 49 of the Bill we were not in any way reassured by his remarks. We were not reassured by them at all. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said:
I do not think that Secretary of State's assurance is worth a great deal. If I were a London ratepayer — indeed I am a ratepayer in my constituency and in London—I should not put much store by that promise."— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 March 1984; c. 1117.]
How right my hon. Friend was! The Secretary of State has been caught with his fingers in the till. Instead of accepting the legal judgment which was successfully brought against him, he has now plummeted to depths by introducing this squalid little Bill, this retrospective piece of legislation, to get his hands on the money which the court of law said he had no right to have.
By his disreputable behaviour tonight, the Secretary of State is merely trying to mask the enormity of his own incompetence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said repeatedly, the central and crucial issue surrounding this whole shabby affair is that the Secretary of State wants to force London's ratepayers into paying London Regional Transport vast sums of money which will only go towards creating a surplus which LRT does not need. That is why I invite my hon. Friends to joint me in the Lobby to prevent the Secretary of State from making a mockery of Parliament.

Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply. We have had two debates, a short one of not much steam about the Bill, and a long and interesting one about London Regional Transport, punctuated by the marathon speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I was extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because his speech enabled me to get something to eat—more than one usually gets when one is replying to a debate.
The matters which do not strictly fall within the Bill are none the less extremely important, and I am sure that the House was grateful for the opportunity to debate LRT's past and future.
I think that my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), and for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) had the best of the debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North for the way in which he answered the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras at less length but with concrete examples of the way in which the service has improved since LRT was set up. That is what matters, not some vague concept about whether the GLC is co-ordinating or is being democratic. What matters is whether the bus stops are built, or whether the P4 bus, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich referred, is fulfilling the function that it should fulfill.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North that LRT carries school children free until they are 16, after which they become adults, as 16 is the age at which compulsory education ceases. He might like to take that point up with the chairman.
For the record, I must recall that underground mileage has not been cut. However, bus mileage will be cut slightly —by 2 per cent. The LRT board has put up fares by 9 per cent. They were last put up in May 1983, and during that interval the increase in prices has been 7·75 per cent. Therefore, this increase is just a tiny bit above inflation.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) alleged that prices had been put up twice. He is wrong. London Transport fares are 10 per cent. lower in real terms than they were when the present Labour GLC came to power in 1981. So much for all the rubbish from Labour Members about high fares. I do not accept what has been said and I never will. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West must get his facts right and become more accurate. The hon. Gentleman said that London rates had gone up by 35 per cent. for London Regional Transport. That is not the case. The rate for LRT is lower than it was under the GLC. It will be £50 million less next year than was taken from London ratepayers in the last year of responsibility of the GLC. How the hon. Gentleman could make that argument, I do not know. He was trying to conceal the GLC's excessive spending on matters other than transport.
To show how enormous an improvement the present board is making, I should point out that the revenue subsidy this year to London transport is £190 million. In two years' time the board hopes to get it down by half, to £95 million. That is against the figure of £245 million which the GLC was planning to pull out of the pockets of London ratepayers and give to LRT. There are crocodile tears about looking after the interests of London ratepayers. Who is looking after their interests? Is it the Government, who will take £95 million in revenue subsidy in two years' time, or is it the GLC, who wanted to take £245 million? Let us have no more nonsense of that sort.
Some points have been made in a desultory fashion about the Bill. It has hardly been argued at all. The ritual points of criticism which we have heard this afternoon and which we will no doubt hear again at a later stage are that the legislation is overturning a decision of the court and that it is retrospective. Those two points have been made over and over again, but, interestingly, without being developed by any Opposition Member.
The Bill is not overturning a decision of the court. We accepted the decision and have not appealed against it. We have decided that the original legislation was defective in

that I told Parliament what its effect would be but I turned out to be wrong. If the House wants an apology, I apologise for having been wrong. I am sure the House will agree that, since I was wrong, I should give the House an opportunity to put the legislation right. That is what the business is today.
There are plenty of precedents. In the debate on the Ways and Means motion I cited one which hon. Members tried hard to debunk, but without success—the Travel Concessions (London) Act 1982. If hon. Members do not like that one, let me give them another. In 1955 a Birmingham ratepayer successfully challenged a scheme run by Birmingham corporation for travel concessions for elderly people. Following the Appeal Court ruling that Birmingham was in breach of its fiduciary duty, the Travel Concessions Act 1955 was passed to give local authorities which run transport undertakings the power to give travel concessions.
When the Government of the day passed that Act, were they behaving illegally or retrospectively? We have heard many terrible adjectives. The adjectives used by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) are not nearly as good as those used by her hon. Friend. She must get better adjectives. She is short on argument and long on adjectives.
There are good precedents for giving the House an opportunity to change the law where it has been found to be different from what the House thought it was. Often the House has decided to put right earlier legislation.

Mr. Cohen: rose—

Mr. Ridley: No; I have a lot to say and there is not much time.
Retrospection was mentioned by the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich, for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and by many others. They used various adjectives in passing and then moved to the next point. On the Ways and Means motion the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said:
The GLC will be charged for services provided by another authority in a period of time pre-dating the enactment of the Bill, and it was never warned at any point that this might happen."—[Official Report, 7 February 1985; Vol. 72, c. 1204–5.]
It was strange for the hon. Lady to say that the GLC was not warned at any point. It was warned in December 1983, when the London Regional Transport Bill was published, that the figure could be £360 million. It was warned again by what I said in Committee. It was warned again when the direction was made. And when it won the High Court case, it was warned again that I had the intention of appealing. Thus, at no point throughout that saga did it have the slightest reason for believing that it might not need to find the full amount. In fact, the GLC's liability under this measure is £23 million less than it was under the original section 49 direction, so in no way can it claim that it was never warned or that it was not fully under notice that that was the amount of money that it might have to provide and for which it should make provision.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that I never intended to appeal against the decision. I must put her right. I did intend to appeal, and if I temporarily made a slip at Question Time—[Interruption.]—and said that the matter was sub judice, it was sub judice to me—[Interruption.]—and that is what I said.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Really!

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady knows that I said that. If I am considering an appeal, there is no way whatever that I shall answer questions on the substance of the matter. I made that absolutely clear at the time of the point of order being raised—

Mr. Tony Banks: Come off it.

Mr. Ridley: —and if the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich had taken the trouble to read the Official Report, she would have known what she was talking about. [Interruption] In fact, the Government decided not to appeal—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot quite hear the Secretary of State.

Mr. Ridley: The Government decided not to appeal because it was necessary in this matter to get the right answer.
I return to the parallel that I gave. If it had been decided to appeal against the Birmingham judgment to which I referred, and if the appeal had given the answer that Birmingham corporation was not allowed to grant travel concessions to elderly people, would Labour Members have suggested that that should simply be accepted? Surely it is not a matter ultimately of leaving it to the law. It is a matter of this House being able to decide what is essentially a political issue and to prevail in achieving that political end.
I come to an issue that was dealt with by the hon. Members for Woolwich and for Wigan (Mr. Stott), and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West might benefit, for the first time, from hearing the fourth speech that I have made on this subject. I refer to the question of what LRT needs for this year, and let us first get the facts right, which the hon. Member for Wigan did not do.
The expected current cash surplus at the end of this financial year is not £50 million, as he said, but £30 million. As I said, it is necessary to provide for the needs of LRT, and they are, including the accrued unfunded liabilities, the following sums: £21 million for voluntary severance payments already agreed and accepted; £6 million for insurance claims against LRT, which it will in due course have to pay; £4 million for claims outstanding on the Jubilee line; £5 million in relation to development land tax which it owes and will have to pay; and £1 million for land compensation claims. That makes a total of £37 million which its auditors will certify as being due and having to be covered in this year's accounts. Thus, far from there being a surplus, there is a small deficit of £7 million — £37 million less £30 million — which is the cash that it has available.
The hon. Member for Wigan said that nothing had gone to the GLC and that everything that the Government are claiming should go to it. I repeat that £23 million less is being taken from the GLC than under the original direction. That is something which the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ridley: No, because I have little time remaining and the hon. Gentleman has had his say.
The judgment on the question of consultation, a matter that was raised by many hon. Gentlemen, stating that although there was no statutory right to consultation, the

GLC had a legitimate expectation that that would take place. I am not sure what "a legitimate expectation" means in a judgment, but it is odd that during the passage of the Bill the Opposition did not seek to insert a statutory right to consultation. If they feel so strongly about it now, they would surely have done so. We carefully did not include such a right in the original section 49 because I do not believe that it is necessary to consult on this matter.
Opposition Members have made a complete mess of this part of the argument. As my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North and for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) have pointed out, it seems to be the policy of the Labour party that one forces people to consult on matters when it is to one's advantage, but when it is not to one's advantage, one does not consult, one will not consult and one will not discuss it. It is this partiality that I find so unpleasant.
The consultation is irrelevant. It is Parliament, not the court, that should decide how much money should be paid by the GLC to LRT for 1984–85. The court did not set out to decide that; the court did not decide on any sum of money. It is our job to make that decision. I thought that section 49 gave us the power to do that, but it turns out that it does not. Therefore, LRT will be some £50 million short if the Bill is not enacted and the GLC will have £50 million surplus which it did not expect to have.
The hon. Members for Wigan, for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) and for Newham, North-West used the ingenious argument that it is not necessary to have the Bill and that I could have made a new direction. Indeed I could have made a new direction, but it would have been £50 million short of what is needed.
Let us consider what that £50 million is. It is £50 million of ratepayers' money. The hon. Member for Wigan let the cat out of the bag. He said that I could have made a bigger levy on the ratepayers next year and that I could have got the money back by increasing the levy. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that not only should £50 million have been taken from London ratepayers last year, but that he would like the Government to take another £50 million from them this year—to pay twice for one lot of subsidy to LRT. The ratepayers will know on whose side the Government are. The Opposition are not on the side of the ratepayers. Through sleight of hand and deceit they seek to cheat London ratepayers if they oppose the Bill.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 197.

Division No. 113]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bevan, David Gilroy


Alexander, Richard
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Amess, David
Blackburn, John


Ancram, Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Tom
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Bottomley, Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baldry, Tony
Bright, Graham


Batiste, Spencer
Brooke, Hon Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Bellingham, Henry
Browne, John


Bendall, Vivian
Bryan, Sir Paul


Best, Keith
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.






Budgen, Nick
Heddle, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Henderson, Barry


Burt, Alistair
Hickmet, Richard


Butterfill, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hill, James


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hind, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cash, William
Holt, Richard


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hordern, Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howard, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunter, Andrew


Clegg, Sir Walter
Irving, Charles


Cockeram, Eric
Jackson, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Conway, Derek
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Simon
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Corrie, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Couchman, James
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Cranborne, Viscount
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dover, Den
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Knowles, Michael


Dunn, Robert
Knox, David


Durant, Tony
Lamont, Norman


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lang, Ian


Eggar, Tim
Latham, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawler, Geoffrey


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fallon, Michael
Lester, Jim


Farr, Sir John
Lightbown, David


Favell, Anthony
Lilley, Peter


Fletcher, Alexander
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luce, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lyell, Nicholas


Fox, Marcus
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Franks, Cecil
Macfarlane, Neil


Freeman, Roger
MacGregor, John


Fry, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gale, Roger
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Galley, Roy
Maclean, David John


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Madel, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Major, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Malone, Gerald


Goodlad, Alastair
Maples, John


Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marlow, Antony


Grant, Sir Anthony
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, Harry
Mates, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Mather, Carol


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Grist, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hannam, John
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Monro, Sir Hector


Haselhurst, Alan
Moore, John


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hawksley, Warren
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hayes, J.
Mudd, David


Hayhoe, Barney
Murphy, Christopher


Hayward, Robert
Neale, Gerrard





Needham, Richard
Stern, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Newton, Tony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Normanton, Tom
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Norris, Steven
Stokes, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stradling Thomas, J.


Ottaway, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Parris, Matthew
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Patten, John (Oxford)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thurnham, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Portillo, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Trotter, Neville


Powley, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Proctor, K. Harvey
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Raffan, Keith
Waddington, David


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Renton, Tim
Wall, Sir Patrick


Rhodes James, Robert
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Watson, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wheeler, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Whitfield, John


Scott, Nicholas
Whitney, Raymond


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilkinson, John


Silvester, Fred
Wood, Timothy


Skeet, T. H. H.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Speed, Keith



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Squire, Robin
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Stanley, John
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Cohen, Harry


Alton, David
Coleman, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Ashdown, Paddy
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Ashton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cowans, Harry


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Craigen, J. M.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Crowther, Stan


Barnett, Guy
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Dr John


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dalyell, Tam


Beith, A. J.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Bermingham, Gerald
Deakins, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Dobson, Frank


Blair, Anthony
Dormand, Jack


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Douglas, Dick


Boyes, Roland
Dubs, Alfred


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eadie, Alex


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Bruce, Malcolm
Ellis, Raymond


Buchan, Norman
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Caborn, Richard
Ewing, Harry


Campbell, Ian
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Canavan, Dennis
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Fisher, Mark


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Flannery, Martin


Cartwright, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Forrester, John


Clarke, Thomas
Foster, Derek


Clay, Robert
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Garrett, W. E.






Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Godman, Dr Norman
Nellist, David


Golding, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gould, Bryan
O'Brien, William


Gourlay, Harry
O'Neill, Martin


Ground, Patrick
Park, George


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Parry, Robert


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Patchett, Terry


Hardy, Peter
Pavitt, Laurie


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pendry, Tom


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pike, Peter


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Prescott, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Radice, Giles


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Randall, Stuart


Heffer, Eric S.
Redmond, M.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Howells, Geraint
Robertson, George


Hoyle, Douglas
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rowlands, Ted


John, Brynmor
Ryman, John


Johnston, Russell
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kennedy, Charles
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Kirkwood, Archy
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Leighton, Ronald
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Snape, Peter


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Soley, Clive


Litherland, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stott, Roger


Loyden, Edward
Strang, Gavin


McCartney, Hugh
Straw, Jack


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McGuire, Michael
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McKelvey, William
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Tinn, James


McNamara, Kevin
Wainwright, R.


McTaggart, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McWilliam, John
Wareing, Robert


Madden, Max
Welsh, Michael


Marek, Dr John
White, James


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Maxton, John
Winnick, David


Maynard, Miss Joan
Woodall, Alec


Meacher, Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Meadowcroft, Michael



Michie, William
Tellers for the Noes:


Mikardo, Ian
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Millen, Rt Hon Bruce
Mr. Don Dixon.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Committee tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Water (Fluoridation) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Orders of the Day — Business of the House

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. Following the point of order raised by the Opposition today, and after discussions through the usual channels, the business for Wednesday 20 February will now be:
Remaining stages of the London Regional Transport (Amendment) Bill, and of the Trustee Savings Banks Bill.
Motion on the European Community document No. 4421/85 on the milk supplementary levy scheme.
The business on Thursday 21 February will be:
Debate on the Royal Air Force, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order.
The debate on the Rate Limitation (Prescribed Maximum) (Rates) Order has been postponed until Monday 25 February.

Mr. Peter Shore: The House will know that this late night business statement arises out of the incompetence and muddle of the Secretary of State for the Environment, who once again has managed to confuse not only himself but the whole of the House of Commons by the sheer incompetence and maladroitness with which he handles the business affairs of his Department.
Will the Leader of the House convey to his colleague how dissatisfied we are with these constant difficulties that face the House through the sheer continuous incompetence of what was once a great Department of State? I wish also to convey the great dissatisfaction of the Opposition at being forced to make yet again sudden changes in our business and, above all, being forced to have a two-day diet of retrospective legislation put to the House because of the additional incompetence of the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Biffen: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He is a touch less than characteristically generous, because aspects of the order which the Opposition thought gave rise to great difficulties were raised earlier today and we have tried to meet them by the arrangements that I have just put to the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, as it has taken the Government two goes to get a rates order for the House to debate, they will have got it right by Monday, or will it be withdrawn again when yet another error is discovered?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman must learn, like me, to travel hopefully.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Now that the Government's fingers in the till have engineered a bit of flexibilitity in this week's business, instead of the business now set down for Thursday, could we not have a discussion of the Prime Minister's statement in answer to the first question in Prime Minister's questions this afternoon when she said that nearly three quarters of youngsters leaving youth training schemes are getting work, since the Department of Employment estimates, on the basis of a survey that covers a few hundred people, that


only about 56 per cent. get work? If the youth training scheme is so good, why is the Prime Minister trying to remove from supplementary benefit all 16 and 17-yearolds who refuse to go on training schemes?

Mr. Biffen: I have repeatedly been asked by hon. Members that the debate on the RAF should be held as soon as possible. That is why I am pleased to announce it as Thursday's business.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is uncommonly awkward to take the Committee stage of the London Regional Transport (Amendment) Bill tomorrow? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Why? Because I do not think that the Secretary of State can take the excitement. What are the precedents for taking the Committee stage so soon after Second Reading?

Mr. Biffen: I am touched by the solicitude shown by the hon. Member for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I assure him that what is proposed is with precedent and has inconvenience.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Why are we not taking the opportunity on Thursday to debate the disgrace to our prosperous country of so many old and poor people suffering from hypothermia? Is it not a damned disgrace that we have not had a full debate in Government time on the danger posed to many people as a result of the dreadful policies of this disgraceful Prime Minister?

Mr. Biffen: We are having the business that is set down for Thursday because there is an obligation to have a debate on the RAF, and I have been requested to arrange for that debate to be as soon as possible.

Mr. Wareing: What about heating for the old?

Mr. Guy Barnett: I understand that the order which was to have been debated tomorrow has been delayed because the figures in respect of one of the local authorities involved have been got wrong. It is not unlikely that the figures in respect of several other authorities have also been got wrong. Would it not be more sensible for the House to consider orders concerning each of the

authorities which are likely to be affected by rate capping, since in each case there are different circumstances which should be debated separately?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but it is one for the debate on Monday.

Mr. Robert Parry: Is the Leader of the House satisfied that on Thursday the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984 should again be debated after the main business? Is it not typical of the Government not to want a proper debate and a good attendance for the debate on Thursday night?

Mr. Biffen: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I did not catch what he said. I should be grateful if he would be kind enough to repeat it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member ask his question again briefly?

Mr. Parry: I ask the Leader of the House why he agrees to the Prevention of Terrorism Act being debated on Thursday when he knows that there is a one-line Whip and that many hon. Members will be absent? [Interruption.] Will he reconsider the position so that we can have a proper debate about that important Act?

Mr. Biffen: In no sense can I answer for the attendance of the House. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that this is an important order. It is to be debated at the usual time of the night for such business.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members will be delighted at his decision to bring forward the debate on the Royal Air Force, which is already overdue, because many important decisions need to be taken?

Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What opportunities will be made available to the borough councils concerned to examine the figures produced by the Government in advance of the debate, and when will the figures be made available to hon. Members?

Mr. Biffen: I shall look into that point and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Orders of the Day — Water (Fluoridation) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

CONSULTATION WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES

`Before any health authority makes an application in accordance with section 1(1) it shall consult the county council, borough or district council, community or parish council and community health council in whose area any part of the area the subject of the proposed application falls.'.—[Mr. Best.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Keith Best: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following: New Clause 2 — Resolutions of borough or district councils
`If at any stage a resolution is passed in the borough or district council in whose area any part of the area the subject of an application made under section 1(1) falls which requires the cessation of any increase in the fluoride content of the water supplied by the statutory water undertaker then the statutory water undertaker shall cease to increase the fluoride content of the water.'.
Amendment No. 15, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, after `authority', insert
'after a vote taken at a meeting at which not less than 50 per cent. of the members of the authority entitled to vote are present'.
Amendment No. 13, in page 1, line 8, after 'may', insert
'subject to subsection (2) below.'.
Amendment No. 14, in page 1, line 9, at end insert —
`(2) There shall be no increase in the fluoride content of the water supplied by a water undertaker unless approval is given for such action by the vote of a majority in favour of it in each county council in the area to be affected'.
Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 13, at end insert —
`(2) There shall be no increase in the fluoride content of the water supplied by a water undertaker in England and Wales unless approval is given for such action by a majority in favour of it in a county council or councils, or in each district council, in the area to be affected.'.
Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 36, at end insert —
'"consumer" means each legal person, individual or otherwise, to whom a demand for water charges is sent by the statutory water undertaker.'.
Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 39, at end insert —
'(9) Any statutory water undertaker wishing to increase the fluoride content of water in accordance with subsection (1) above must first obtain the consent of a simple majority of its consumers.
(10) No fluoride increase is permitted unless and until consent is obtained.'.

Mr. Best: I must declare an interest, because I drink water. I suspect that I share this interest with many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly.

Mr. Best: I may even share that interest with some Opposition Members. The difference between freedom of choice on some issues and the freedom of choice about which we are debating—the amendments talk about a manifestation of popular will—is that I have no choice but to drink water. Water is the one element that is essential to sustain life, and no one has any choice but to

drink it. Sometimes a seemingly analogous picture is painted between the choice of drinking water and, for example, the choice of wearing seat belts or crash helmets. That is not an analogy, because ultimately a person can choose not to drive a car, or not to ride a motor cycle, but he cannot choose not to drink water.
Science can make water potable so that it does not harm those who drink it. We welcome that, because it is right that the water supply should not cause active harm to those who drink it. However we can take a more positive role. The amendments deal with whether people should have the right to decide through their democratically elected representatives whether something positive should be done to the water supplies, not to make them potable, but to introduce mass medication. It is mass medication, because it is done to inhibit the onset of dental caries.
I am a Conservative, not least because I believe in individual freedom. I see that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) does not agree with that. That is not surprising. I wish to be charitable. I do not want to make this a party political issue, because I hope that many Opposition Members will support those of us who believe in individual freedom when we go through the Lobby tonight. I hope the hon. Lady agrees that people should have the right to make decisions about their health.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman so soon, but has he ever asked for the natural fluoride present in the water in Wales to be removed?

Mr. Best: I do not wish to digress. That issue has been well debated. It has always struck me as extraordinary that because something which may or may not be harmful is naturally present in water supplies, that is a good reason for saying that we should artificially add it to water supplies.
I have never been persuaded by that proposition, and on closer analysis no one would be. I repeat my rhetorical question: should individual members of our society have the right to make a decision about their health?
The Government have been in the forefront of giving people individual choice on matters of transport and education. I welcome that, and I believe that all Conservative Members welcome those decisions. Why should we not give individual choice to people on health matters? That choice is being denied them because this substance is being added to the water supply and no one has any choice but to drink water.
Society has a duty to safeguard the health of its citizens, but does it have a right to force its citizens to be medicated against their will? Many citizens will want to receive fluoride through the water supplies because they will have been persuaded that it is beneficial to children's teeth. I do not derogate from the broad proposition that in certain circumstances fluoride can inhibit the onset of dental caries, but this matter goes way beyond that.
The gravamen of the issue is whether those who do not wish to be mass medicated through the water supplies should have the right not to be. It is not right for society, through the House, to force on people something relating to their health which they do not want and over which they have no choice.
The amendments try to introduce a measure of democracy into the decision whether health authorities should recommend water authorities to add fluoride to the


water. At present there is no democracy because those decisions are taken by a health authority, which is not directly elected. I acknowledge, of course, that there are persons serving on those health authorities who were orginally directly elected to other bodies, but that does not make a health authority a directly elected body.
I shall give an example from Anglesey, which is part of Gwynedd. It is interesting to note that when the Gwynedd health authority last debated this matter on 26 November last year it voted by eight to six, with one abstension, to continue to support the fluoridation of the water supplies. That is not an especially large majority, even for a non-elected body, but the directly elected bodies representing people in Anglesey and Gwynedd tell us a different story.
On 15 June 1967, after debating this issue, the Anglesey community health council — we should not forget that that body was set up by Parliament to be a watchdog for the Health Service and the people of Anglesey—opposed the artificial addition of fluoride to the water supplies and voted, not by eight to six but by eight to four for that decision. The number who did not want fluoride added to the water supplies was twice the number who did.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Has my hon. Friend noted a glaring defect in the Bill? If the health authority changes its mind and votes eight to six in favour of discontinuing adding fluoride to the water supplies, that vote does not instruct the water authority to cease supplying fluoride.

Mr. Best: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because another amendment addresses the duration of an application made by a health authority under the Bill's provisions.
The consumer watchdog for Anglesey said that it did not want fluoride added to the water supplies. Anglesey borough council is also opposed to the artificial fluoridation of water supplies. If we delve even further into every survey and opinion poll conducted in my constituency—whether by me or anyone else—we find that the majority of people are against the artificial addition of fluoride to the water supplies. Those of us who believe in democracy and the expression of individual choice, especially on a matter that is as fundamental to the individual as health have a right to ask: what price democracy? Where is democracy in the Bill? It is entirely absent. That is one of the gravest defects of the Bill and the reason why we are debating these amendments.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be prepared to say that these matters should be subject to democratic control. I hope also that he will agree with some of these amendments, which say that an application should not be made by a health authority without prior consultation with those bodies which have been democratically elected in the area which would be affected by the application. That is a modest enough proposal, and that is the affect of new clause 1. The new clause does not even go so far as to require the health authority to abide by the decision of the directly elected body. It merely requires the health authority to "consult" with the directly elected body.
I hope the House will agree that it is not uncharitable of me to say to my hon. Friend that he would be extremely churlish if he did not even pay lip-service to democracy and consultation by at least recommending acceptance of new clause 1. It merely requires consultation. There are those of my hon. Friends—and I would prefer to go along with them — who would require a further manifestation of the democratic will in the Bill than merely a duty to consult. That would be that a health authority should not only consult directly-elected bodies, but that if those directly-elected bodies are against the artificial fluoridation of water supplies, the health authority should abide by that decision.
Even if that is not incuded in the Bill there is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) so helpfully pointed out, a fundamental defect in it. If, at some subsequent stage, the health authority decides against the artificial fluoridation of water supplies in its area, an application having been made, there is no machinery for that change of mind to be put into effect.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): On this rare occasion my hon. Friend has been led into error by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). Clause 1 says that the water authority may put fluoride in the water, when the health authority has applied in writing to it,
while the application remains in force".
Clause 1(2) says:
an application shall remain in force until the health authority, after giving reasonable notice to the statutory water undertaker in writing, withdraw it.
If a health authority changes its mind, it has to give notice of this, the application is cancelled, and the fluoride is withdrawn.

Mr. Best: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for pointing that out. I believe that he is right, and my fears are assuaged on that matter.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Before my hon. Friend's fears are assuaged, can he advise my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister on what happens to the flouride in the water in the meantime?

Mr. Best: My hon. and learned Friend will, I hope, catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will be able to advance that point. I shall not follow that path now, as I do not wish to detain the House for too long.
The problem of the Bill is that there is no vehicle by which popular consent or dissent to artificial flouridation of water supplies can be made manifest. That is a grave defect. There should be a clause or clauses which mean that that manifestation of popular will, however it is done, will be carried into effect, for the reasons that I have advanced. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will say something about wide consultation, not just with local, elected bodies, but with the general public, so that there is an opportunity for members of the public to make their views known fully in advance, before an application is made by a health authority.
I hope that, by nodding his head, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister is not signifying his boredom with my speech so far, but is signifying his assent to that proposition. If that is so, I welcome it, but I ask another question. If he is to make sure that the widest possible consultation can take place and that people can make known their views about whether they wish flouride in the


water, what will he do in the Bill to ensure that if the overwhelming majority view is that people do not want flouride in the water supplies, due regard will be paid to that?
It is one thing to invite the views of the general public—even that does not appear in the Bill, although I hope that in due course it will—but quite another to say that action will be taken as a result of the expression of those views. If something is not done as a result of the expression of those views, it all becomes rather nugatory, because one is then paying merely lip-service to consultation, without carrying it through to its natural conclusion.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Since there was an intervention from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, may I reiterate to my hon. Friend that the Bill does not say that the water authority may not continue with fluoridation after the application ceases to be in force? As we were told on Second Reading that the Bill merely states what is already the law—that was the contention of my right hon. and learned Friend—and as the law does not say that one may not fluoridate without an application from the health authority, is it not the case that the Bill as drafted does not require the water authority to cease introducing fluoride when the application from the heatlh authority is no longer in force? That is the point that I made in my intervention and, so far as I know, it is correct.

Mr. Best: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not debate this matter with him. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will have heard what he said, and I am sure that he will deal with it when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Finally, if we believe in individual choice, particularly over health matters, it is incumbent upon the House to ensure that the legislation does not ride roughshod over the expression of individual choice. It is incumbent upon the House not just to pay lip-service to the will of the people about something over which they have no control, because we must drink water, but to go beyond mere consultation and ensure that in legislation we give expression to the result of that consultation. For those reasons, I hope that the House will ensure that the new clauses and amendments become part of the Bill.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) asked the Front Bench a question in which he suggested that large numbers of people in a particular area would be against the fluoridation of the water supply. The hon. Member should know that down yonder they have already made up their minds. They are in favour of the fluoridation of the water supply. In Committee one Minister said that he had been against fluoridation but that he had then changed his mind.

Mr. Best: I must defend my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government. The hon. Gentleman ought to know that many of them believe in what we are trying to do my moving these new clauses and amendments. many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have considerable sympathy for what we are trying to do and in their hearts feel that it is right to give expression to local democratic views. It is very unfair of the hon. Gentleman to classify all my right hon. and hon. Friends as not being lovers of democracy and individual freedom.

Mr. Haynes: Once again I am surprised at the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. He cannot get away with it like

that. I repeat that the Government have made up their minds and are taking no notice of these amendments, but I am going to have my say.
The hon. Gentleman talked about democracy. That is a bit rich coming from the Government Benches. This Administration is in line with that of Adolf Hitler in 1933. It is a dictatorship. [Laughter.] It is all right for hon. Members to laugh. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) made it clear during the election what would happen. He will be proved right. People will realise what is going on.
10.45 pm
The new clause refers to health authorities. [Interruption.] This is a serious debate. Half the Tory Members are never here. They are sailing the high seas. Look at the tans. Yet they come in now to criticise hon. Members who almost live here doing the job that hon. Members should do on behalf of the people they represent. Hon. Members may laugh.
My district health authority is no different from any other. Health authorities are mentioned in the new clause. The hon. Gentleman talked about democracy. I wish he would come and see my district health authority. It is answerable to nobody but the Government Front Bench. It is full of freemasons. One cannot move for them. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis made a point in regard to freemasons. There are plenty of them on the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Ynys MÔn may talk about democracy, but the Government have already made their decision without any consultation with outside bodies.
I am pleased to see the Minister listening carefully. What democracy was exercised by not giving the people of London the opportunity to say yes or no to the abolition of the GLC? The hon. Member for Ynys MÔn said that the people should decide. There was serious criticism on the Government Benches about the closure of post offices. There was no consultation on that. I am talking about consultation on the part of the Government in relation to this Bill. I am giving one or two examples of how the Government let the people down by not having consultation.

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Haynes: I am not giving way. The hon. and learned Gentleman had his opportunity. All right, I will give way.

Mr. Fairbairn: Does the hon. Gentleman think that we should put the GLC in the water as well?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) will not be provoked into straying from the new clause.

Mr. Haynes: I never break the rules, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I respect the Chair. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman said is not respecting the Chair. He ought to know that much better than many of us because of the office he has held. I have criticised him for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Minister is laughing. I will take the smile off his face. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] We are in debate on the Bill and I am talking to the amendments. I resent hon. Members telling me to get on with it. We have got all night. We have waited for the opportunity to find out what will happen in regard to prescriptions. We are talking


about consultation and democracy under the Government. What right have the Government to do what they propose without consulting the people who will be affected?
Consultation is the point at issue. By consultation, the people will say whether fluoride, if it is in the water naturally, should be removed. If they say that it should, they will have my support because I am anti-fluoride, and in taking that view I am with some Conservative Members. If we agree that water should be natural, without containing fluoride, we should find a means of removing what flouride it contains.

Mr. Michael McGuire: We must nail firmly the accusation that, because fluoride occurs naturally in water, we should add it to water where it is not present naturally. We argued in Committee—our argument has not been rebutted so far—that in addition to fluoride, other constituent parts make up the water content, and many of those parts, including calcium, are beneficial. It is probably not necessary to remove such constituent parts because the water has qualities which aid natural consumption. It is not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is making a long intervention. I remind him that we are dealing with consultation with local authorities. The general principles cannot be argued in discussing the new Clause.

Mr. McGuire: I apologise for the length of my intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I wish that I had the ability to speak more succinctly. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is wondering whether fluoride, where it occurs naturally in water, should be taken out. He should accept that the water contains other qualities which we would not want to take out. Those qualities do not do any damage, I urge him to concentrate on adding fluoride artificially, rather than taking it out. He will then be on a good wicket.

Mr. John Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) wants lessons in being succinct, I will take him out afterwards.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is time to return to the subject of the new clause.

Mr. Haynes: We are talking about the need for consultation about the fluoridation of water. Unfortunately, the Government have established a sort of secret society in that one cannot learn what water authorities are saying when they discuss these issues. The press are not allowed into their meetings, so the general public cannot be told the facts. How can the Government talk about consultation and democracy when what is happening is a denial of democracy? That is why I support the new clause. This is all about democracy and consultation, in both of which I sincerely believe, but it seems that a number of hon. Gentlemen believe in neither.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I wish to speak to the amendments in the hope that hon. Gentlemen who are my friends on both sides of the House will stick around long enough to be able to vote.
May I at once address my mind to the amendments under consideration. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) will not mind my saying

that new clause 1 does not meet with my approval, since it is far too wet and feeble. New clause 2, which calls for the ability to cease fluoridation after it has begun, seems to me too much like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Amendment No. 15, which I tabled, is meant to be a fallback position if all else fails. In my view, it would then be reasonable to expect the health authority to make the decision to fluoridate with at least half the people on the health authority present. Amendment No. 13 is purely procedural.
That brings me to the much stronger amendment No. 14, which I tabled. I limited this to getting a majority in favour in each County Council because in Committee I had argued the case for getting a majority in favour in district councils, and I thought that Mr. Speaker would find it easier to select the amendment for discussion if I changed it slightly.
To my great pleasure, I note that the perfect amendment in this respect has been tabled by the Liberals, that is, amendment No. 2. That does what I attempted to do in Committee and what I am trying to do now on Report. It says:
… approval is given for such action by a majority in favour of it in a county council or councils, or in each district council, in the area to be affected.
I think that that is the right and sensible approach, and the strong approach, and I hope that it will meet with support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am pleased on this occasion—and I hope that it will not happen too often — to accept and support something advanced by members of the Liberal party.

Mr. Fairbairn: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that, while he may be foolish enough to accept something which is given in the Trojan horse with Liberal colours this could not of course apply to Scotland because we do not have such authorities. The Liberal Members allegedly are in favour of a separate Scottish government.

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that most helpful intervention.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Is the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) aware that the water authorities in Scotland are themselves elected authorities? This is a function of the regional councils. The amendment, therefore, is perfectly correctly worded; it need not apply to Scotland because the Scottish authorities are already elected. It is only in England and Wales that the water authorities are not elected bodies.

Mr. Lawrence: If I may join in the discussion between my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), I want merely to make the point that we now have an opportunity to do something which it is important for the House to do.
11 pm
We have already sold the pass on the freedom of choice. We have sold the pass in allowing for the first time in the history of this country mass medication of the public water supply, which is an infringement of the fundamental liberty of the individual so grave that whenever it has been introduced in any country, it is not very long before advantage is taken of the precedent therein. I am very worried that at some stage there might be in this country a Government who would build upon the precedent of


adding fluoride to the water, which at its best, if the claims for it have anything like approaching any value, would only delay the onset of caries in children's teeth for several years—

Mr. Fairbairn: What about AIDS?

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. and learned Friend puts his finger on it— [Interruption.] I do not think that that is the first time that he has put his finger on a matter of importance. Although AIDS is a serious matter, several other illnesses can also be rife in society, such as AIDS, for which cures are not necessarily known, and where concerns run very deep. There might be a tendency in a future Government to take the advice of doctors, dentists and scientists, and treat the water so that that illness may be cured.
One can conceive situations in which, for example, if any country became overpopulated, the temptation to put into the water something that might have a contraceptive capacity would be very great—

Mr. Fairbairn: Bromide.

Mr. Lawrence: The expert on bromide and other forms of treatment of water and mere water sits behind me, and I do not think that I need go down that avenue very far tonight.
It is a monstrous infringement of the liberty of the individual. The amendment is hauling back some measure of control over it.
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, who resisted an amendment in Committee to make it compulsory for a water authority to fluoridate in any situation where the health authority required it to do so. We all know that health authorities will require water authorities to do so because health authorities are full of those great public-spirited gentlemen, the doctors, scientists and dentists of this world who, while they are public-spirited, do not seem to care a damn for the liberty of the individual.
I think that I have already told the story of the dentist who came into my surgery and asked whether I would fight for his freedom to choose which school he should send his child to. I said I would do so if he would fight for my freedom to choose whether fluoride goes into my water. I asked how he would equate the two. He said that he would have to think about that. The sad thing was that he had not thought about it until I raised it. Freedom is not a matter that centres in the thoughts of doctors, dentists and scientists in our society. It should centre in the thoughts of we who represent the people who want to be free in this country.
The only way in which we can control health authorities and water authorities — but mostly it is the health authorities—is if we introduce an element of democratic choice to the process of fluoridating water. If one was to say my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, "Do you believe in fluoridation?" she would say, "Yes, provided that there is local choice." If one were to say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, "Do you think that we should have fluoride in the water?" he would say, "Yes," as he has done, "provided that we have local choice." The people who have written to the Department of Health and Social Security and said that they oppose fluoridation are always told that if it is introduced as a discretionary matter, there will be local choice.
However, we have been misled because ordinary people believe local choice to be what the local authority—the locally elected authority, the representative of the people—decides. But we find in the Bill that it is only the local health authority or the local water authority.
That would not satisfy anybody in the area in which I live who was looking for local democracy because the Severn Trent water authority does not represent the wishes of the people of Burton upon Trent, Uttoxeter, Tutbury or Tocester; it represents an enormous area, a region of the United Kingdom and simply has no interest in finding out what the wishes of the people are.
It is not that we simply want to be able to express through our democratically elected representatives their wishes in the matter; it is that we have before us examples of exactly how dismissive of democratically-held views on the subject the water authorities can be. In this matter we see no party boundaries, therefore I hope I shall be forgiven for addressing all hon. Members as hon. Friends when I say that the health authorities in the West Midlands and the water authorities decided that they wanted to fluoridate the water. They did not decide just cool, without having any idea of the wishes of the people, therefore they cannot be excused for saying that they really believed the people are in favour and that was why they did it. Thay had many expressions of view on fluoridation. Their view was directly contrary to the view which had already been expressed by Staffordshire, Shropshire, Gloucestershire, Hereford and Worcestershire county councils. So here we have a water authority that in complete disregard of and contempt for the democratically expressed view of county councils in its area has decided to go ahead and mass-medicate the water supply.

Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the regional health authority but I see that according to the definition "health authority" means, in relation to England and Wales, any district health authority. Would the hon. Gentleman advise me whether he is referring to regions or districts?

Mr. Lawrence: The present situation is that the area health authority makes its representations, the regional health authority advises the water authority and the water authority fluoridates the water. It is on the request of the regional health authority, with the advice and support of the area health authority—[Interruption.] I am so sorry, I mean district health authority. We have abolished the area health authority. That was one of the achievements of the Conservative Government in the days when it was trying to liberate people and also to save money—both factors which arise in this matter. The hon. Gentleman will have to ask the Minister what his intentions are. The fact of the matter is that there is no intention in this Bill democratically to give right to anybody to have his views expressed or understood.
Whenever in the West Midlands region, in the Severn-Trent water authority area, there has been an opportunity to test the will of the people in the only way which is really effective—that is the way of the democratically elected councils—they have acted in the face of the results of those elections.
I have spoken about county councils, but it is far worse than that. As far as the district councils are concerned, Newcastle-under-Lyme — the hon. Gentleman's own district council — Stafford district council, south


Staffordshire, east Staffordshire, Lichfield, Cannock Chase, Tamworth and Stoke-on-Trent have all said no to fluoridation, yet the water authority is about to fluoridate if it has not already started. Oswestry, north Shropshire, south Shropshire, Shrewsbury and Atchan, the Wrekin and Bridgnorth in Shropshire have all said no to fluoridation, and, with contempt for their views, the water authority is fluoridating. Malvern Hills, Wychaven, Worcester in Hereford and Worcester have all said no. The district councils of Cheltentham, Gloucester, Tewkesbury—

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to be reading the Financial Times?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is happening, unless it is in preparation for the debate it is out of order.

Mr. Lawrence: I was making a very good point. If my hon. Friends can control themselves until I have finished the good points, and interrupt only during the bad points, I should be grateful. The district councils of Cheltenham, Gloucester, Tewkesbury, Stroud and the Forest of Dean have all said no. The Wolverhampton, Stratford-on-Avon, south Derbyshire, Broxbourne and Nottingham councils have all said no. They are the local democratically-elected representatives of the people saying, "We do not want that medication forced down our throats." Yet the water authority and the health authority contemptuously say, "You will have it."

Mr. Golding: The hon. and learned Gentleman has done his homework. Can he tell us all the parishes in Staffordshire, Gloucestershire, and Cheshire that have said no?

Mr. Lawrence: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that question. Of a total of 148 parish councils—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read them out."] I have two lists, but out of concern for hon. Members I shall not read them out. I shall simply state the general conclusion. Of 148 parish councils that were circularised by the Staffordshire Parish Councils Association, of the 72 replies 12 said that they were in favour of fluoridation—none of those had conducted a local survey—of the 58 that said they were against fluoridation, 22 had conducted a local survey. Two said that they did not know. Of those responding, 86 per cent. of the parish councils in Staffordshire are against fluoridation of the water supply, 14 per cent. are in favour, and 40 per cent. of those against fluoridation bothered to conduct surveys.
It is plain that this measure takes away the freedom of the individual to choose whether he will have poison put into his water, whether it affects him or not, whether it benefits him or not—and there are at least 17 million people who have no teeth and therefore cannot benefit by fluoride in the water; they can only be harmed by the continuous ingestion of a poison that is accumulative in the system and which, by old age, can develop harmful effects. There have been many surveys on that point, but this is not the time to detail them. It is absolutely clear that those people should be given some opportunity of having their views on the matter properly reflected in the only way we know how.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend if he will take seriously the wishes of the people. They want to have a

local decision; they mean a local democratic decision. I always thought that my party would never introduce compulsory mass medication. It is compulsory because any health authority that so desires will inevitably get a water authority fluoridating the water and so the people will be compulsorily medicated.
For the moment I shall control my anger at my party for selling me the pass on freedom if it does not follow it by selling me the pass on democracy. I believe that my party is a democratic party and that it believes in the freedom of the individual to make his choices if not individually, then through his democratically-elected representative. I therefore support the amendment.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The Second Reading debate has already taken place and it is a shame that we must rehearse the principles again. I support the principle, but it is interesting that some of these amendments unite Liberal Members, even though some might oppose the principle. It is important to consider locally and democratically elected authorities as a means of providing local opinion on whether water should be fluoridated. It would be dangerous if local councils were unable to have a voice in and to influence the decision whether to fluoridate water.
The Minister for Health is able to appoint members of health authorities and the Secretary of State for the Environment can appoint members of water authorities. Through those appointed members, the Government are able to ensure that water is fluoridated throughout the country. It is wrong that all the power should rest with the Government. Since the Government came to office, members of health authorities who have disagreed with the Government have, on occasion, not been reappointed and others have been appointed because they have political affiliations with the Government. Whatever one's view about that, I am anxious that members of authorities should not be removed simply because they disagree with the Government. To be consistent, I should add that some Left-wing local authorities have also endeavoured to take people off health authorities because of disagreement.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government might remove members from health authorities because they vote against fluoride and that they now need the backing of local authorities in the interests of their own protection?

Mr. Meadowcroft: There is a suspicion that those who are appointed to water or health authorities might be removed if they do not carry out the wishes of the Government who appointed them. The danger is that the bodies that carry out Government policy appear to be local and democratic but are far from it.
The processes of politics and of decision making are as important as the decisions themselves. It would be wrong if the Government could tell the public, "We do not want to argue our case with you locally. We do not want to try to convince you of the rightness of our arguments. We do not want to persuade you that a given course of action, which we believe to be important, must be passed through your local authority. You must just accept it." Our democratic processes are not best served by opting out of that decision-making process.
Powers have been removed from local authorities for decades. I was a member of Leeds city council for six


years before the present appointed water authorities came into being. For six years the water supply in Leeds was the responsibility of the waterworks committee of Leeds city council, and a member of the council had to answer for that service in the city council chamber. One could get a response to questions from officials, and a debate on the efficacy of the water supply. The day that the water authorities became appointed bodies, the style of administration changed. The openess no longer existed, it was more difficult to get inside the decision-making processes of the water authorities, and the way in which we could influence the financing and efficiency of the authorities disappeared overnight.

Mr. Lawrence: Are not even the public allowed in?

Mr. Meadowcroft: That is a further point. One of the Welsh water authorities, to its credit, allows people in, but that is its decision, as it does not have to do so.
If we are to make this change in our water supply, it is important that each hon. Member and our local authority colleagues can persuade people that it is right and proper. If we do not make the decision through those elected authorities and are prepared to say that the Chamber and Government offices are right to force the decision on the public, public cynicism will accumulate. Just as it has been said that fluorine is a cumulative addition to the water supply, so the erosion of the democratic process is also cumulative.
If one cannot persuade people in a local authority area to support this principle, national Government should not force it on them. As we have regional water suppliers, fluorine can be added regionally, and the matter does not have to be decided nationally.
New clause 1, which provides for the right of consultation in local authority areas, is unobjectionable. It is a start. New clause 2 is too strong. It states that one local authority has the right to opt out and therefore to ensure that every other authority in the water authority's area is also opted out. That seems wrong.
Amendment No. 15 seeks to provide that 50 per cent. of the membership of the authority should be present and vote. If we had to enforce the same principle in the House, a great deal of legislation would not pass through the Chamber. It is a strange principle that in one chamber 50 per cent. of the membership should be present and vote, but not in others. That is a flippant amendment because it is not feasible in a democratic set-up.
Amendment No. 14 makes it necessary for county councils to give their support. I support that. However, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, amendment No. 2 gives the choice either to the county council or to the district authority. There may be more or fewer enlightened people in county or district authorities; I do not know. But at least it gives those who have a public representational role to play at either level the chance to argue the case, help local people to understand it and make the decision.

Sir Raymond Gower: I do not understand the following wording and would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would explain it. The amendment states that there must be a majority in favour of it
in a county council or councils, or in each district council.
What will happen if the district councils vote in favour and the county councils against fluoridation? How does he reconcile that?

Mr. Meadowcroft: In some water authority areas and regional health authority areas there is more than one county council, so both must be involved. If either set of authorities can persuade its membership that it is in favour of fluoridating water supplies, it should fluoridate the supplies, rather than have the action vetoed by the other. It is an affirmative vote by counties or districts.
The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) said that the position in Scotland is far better than that in England or Wales. He said that we were in favour of devolution, indeed, with devolution England and Wales may also have benefits. One might be that in a constitutional settlement we would regain the democratic control of our health and water authorities. The regional authorities in Scotland are the water authorities. When I first drafted the amendment — in ignorance of the position in Scotland — I wrote in that the regional, county or district councils should decide the matter. I was then informed that the regional councils were the water authorities. The hon. and learned Member's intervention was unnecessary because the amendment was correctly drafted.
On amendments Nos. 3 and 5, I do not favour the principle of a referendum. Strangely enough, it detracts from the democratic process that I am trying to forward because people who are charged with the elected responsibility of a district or a county council can have that responsibility set aside by a referendum. If in any decision-making process we introduce the right of decision by referendum on any issue that we oppose, what else will be taken away from that local authority? What other decisions will we say must be made by referendum rather than by the democratically elected authority?

Dr. John Marek: The hon. Gentleman said that county and district councils are charged with the responsibility to decide. They may be charged with some responsibilities, but they have no responsibility for water. That responsibility is the water authority's. I do not see the difference between individuals or an elected council, which does not have responsibility for water deciding. How does he explain that?

Mr. Meadowcroft: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to explain the point again. Amendment No. 2 gives the principal local authorities the right to say affirmatively that they wish to have their water fluoridated. I wish to enhance the local government process and the role of district or county councillors. I am therefore opposed to amendments Nos. 3 and 5 because they do not seek to enhance the role of the local authorities. They seek to take the decision away from elected councils and give it to a referendum. I am fearful that that will open the door to take away other powers from local authorities. The hon. Gentleman's point would be right if we did not pass amendment No. 2, because the position would then be different. I am arguing for the adoption of amendment No. 2 and for support for new clause 1.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, the House will wish to know that Mr. Speaker has considered the representations made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) about new clause 13, and he has selected it for debate.

Mr. Matthew Parris: Like the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), I am persuaded that the addition of fluoride to the water supplies is beneficial. I would vote for it in any referendum or test of opinion. I am prepared to defer to expert medical opinion and to the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health. I hold, in an increasingly despairing way, to the quaint belief that because something is wise it is not necessarily right to impose it upon people without asking them, and that because something is unwise it is not necessarily right to prohibit it without asking them.
My amendments, which are related, seek to introduce a way of asking those who take water from a water authority whether they wish that water to be fluoridated.

Sir Raymond Gower: My hon. Friend will recall that many years ago, when there was a smallpox epidemic, the Government deemed it right and proper to introduce compulsory vaccination.

Mr. Fairbairn: Nonsense.

Sir Raymond Gower: My hon. and learned Friend says "Nonsense." I am not discussing the merits of the matter. I am merely stating a fact.

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have an intervention within an intervention.

Sir Raymond Gower: The Government of the day deemed that the danger of the disease was so great that in the circumstances it was right and proper to introduce compulsory vaccination. There was no choice for the people. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) talks about mass medication. Surely that vaccination was a form of mass medication.

Mr. Parris: Let us assume for the purpose of argument—this may or may not be so—that what my hon. Friend has claimed took place did take place. That would have happened because there was an emergency. The Government are entitled in an emergency to take action which they are sure will have the overwhelming support of the people. In those circumstances the Government of the day will act before asking the people for their approval. They will take the action in the confident belief that restrospectively it will receive the endorsement of the people. There is no emergency about the—

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Parris: I shall not give way on this issue because it does not matter for the purposes of my argument—

Mr. Fairbairn: It does for mine.

Mr. Parris: —whether there was compulsory medication for smallpox or there was not. If that action was taken, it was because there was an emergency. There is no emergency behind the fluoridation of water, and that being so I do not see why we should not ask the public before we fluoridate, rather than afterwards.

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Parris: Very well, I shall give way.

Mr. Fairbairn: The proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) is wrong. No Government have ever ordered vaccination or made it

compulsory. If a Government had done so, and none has, it would have been in the interests of those who were vaccinated, and not in the interests of those who were not likely to suffer from anything.

Mr. Parris: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) will resist the temptation to go down that road, which is far from the new clause.

Mr. Parris: I shall resist it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the fluoridation of water is beneficial, but we should, if possible, find a way of asking the public for their opinion on whether that is what they would like to be done to their water.
Various options are rehearsed in the new clauses and amendments. I am sure that my amendment is technically defective, so we shall not have to argue about the merits of the wording. The water authority is the undertaking which sells water to the consumer and it regularly bills consumers for the water which it supplies to them. It might take the opportunity of sending along with its bills a simple question to consumers: do you or do you not wish your water to be fluoridated?
We place a tick in a box in the account to tell the gas or electricity boards whether we would like a receipt when we pay our bills. When paying our water bills we could add our views about fluoridation. If the water authority wanted to advise consumers on what it wanted to do, and wanted to enclose with the bill the advice of the health authority, the district council, the county council or that of the Government, it could so. It would then be left to the consumer, on paying his bill, to tick a box, for example. I suggest that if a simple majority of customers of the authority placed a tick in a box to say that they would like their water to be fluoridated, we should give the water authority the authority to fluoridate its water supplies.
Perhaps the network of one water authority is not the right block, as it were, in which to fluoridate. Perhaps we should consider smaller blocks, such as district councils, local authorities or parliamentary constituencies. That does not matter, because I imagine that a water authority would have sufficiently detailed information about where its customers reside to enable it to conduct referendums in smaller areas than the extent of its supply area.

Dr. Marek: Perhaps there is a flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument. He is talking about consumers only in the sense of those who pay water bills. There are many others in an area than those who pay water bills. Is he disregarding those who do not pay for a water supply?

Mr. Parris: Yes. That is a problem. It is a defect which detracts from the completely democratic nature of what I am proposing, but it might be said that the theory of local government representation is somewhat flawed because those who pay for local government are a minority of those who vote for it. These defects are inherent in any system in which we ask people what they want when they are not necessarily those who are paying for the service.
I would not go to the last ditch in proposing my own way of consulting. I agree with many hon. Members from both sides that, given the will, there is a practical way of consulting people about whether they want their water to be fluoridated.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: This debate is producing some unholy alliances, one of which is that between myself and the hon. Member for Ynys MÔn (Mr. Best). On this matter we are at one.
Having followed the argument, I tend to support the hon. Member for Derbyshire. West (Mr. Parris), who wants an opinion expressed by the maximum number of people possible. I have already expressed my preference for a local referendum. That is feasible within the 1972 legislation which allows community or parish councils to conduct such referenda.
The hon. Member for Ynys MÔn was right to say that people have misgivings about fluoride—30 years after it was added to their water. It is an unkown quantity and yet one in two people in his area are against fluoridation. That reflects the right of people to take decisions themselves instead of accepting a process which is imposed upon them.
Agreement amongst those who are subject to this medication, or process, unites parties and those who are for or against fluoride. The Government should note that in all parties there is some sympathy and support for those who are subject to this legislation having some say.
The situation is worse than it might have been 10 or 12 years ago because the Conservative Government set up a non-elected, nominated, water authority and a non-elected and nominated health authority. Two non-elected bodies are charged with dealing with this matter. That is in contrast with the Government claims that they want local decisions. Members of those two authorities cannot be said to represent local people.
In my county, many people believe that the local authority and water authority do not reflect the wishes of local people. Recently the local authority has been at loggerheads with local opinion on a series of matters. Local authority members are appointed by the Government and therefore beholden to them. The Government's policy is to encourage fluoridation, so it is little surprise that they have a majority on those bodies.

Mr. Fairbairn: There is a longstanding resentment in Wales about the fact that a large part of its water supply comes from England. Even if the amendments were accepted, how would the local authorities be able to prevent the fluoridation of water from a source over which it has no control?

Mr. Wigley: I can imagine circumstances in which the hon. and learned Member's point would be absolutely right. There may be boundaries between the natural flows of water so that fluoride would have to added at every interface. Complications would arise. Presumably the fluoride would not be in the rivers. If so, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) would have something to say about the effect on fish in the rivers.
My main concern is about the rights of people who sincerely and strongly oppose the imposition of fluoride. None of the amendments is a perfect means of solving the problem. Do we say that if 51 per cent. of the population favours and 49 per cent. of the population opposes fluoridation, it is right for the 51 per cent. to impose their solution on the 49 per cent? I have reservations on that point. I believe that the community should take positive action when taking important decisions, such as whether to add fluoride to their water.
I hesitate about leaving the matter to local authorities. So far, local authorities have not been charged with powers

with respect to health or water. If there was legislation to make health and water authorities answerable to locally elected authorities or regionally elected authorities, those local bodies might be the appropriate bodies to handle this matter. I believe that there is a strong case for holding a referendum, as proposed in amendment No. 5. That amendment may not be technically correct as the hon. Member for Ynys MÔn acknowledged. I hope that the Minister is willing to examine this approach and that, the Government will concede possibly in another place that an amendment along those lines should be accepted. An opportunity would thereby be provided for all the local community to take part in a referendum to decide whether fluoride will be added to the water supplies.
Whatever our feelings about fluoride—I have grave reservations, although I acknowledge the medical arguments in favour of its addition — we must acknowledge that many thousands of people feel strongly about this matter. They will pass sleepless nights if fluoridation takes place. The very least that we can give those people is the right to express their opposition. I hope that the Government will recognise the strength of feeling about this matter.

Mr. Fairbairn: I have the greatest sympathy for the amendments' intentions, but I do not believe that those who support the amendments comprehend the principle behind them. We all have to pay rates. Every service for which we pay is comprehended in one tax — except water. Education, sewerage or health—all the services provided by local authorities—can be taken or excepted, but water alone is accepted for a separate charge. Water is excepted, not because water authorities in England differ from those in Scotland but because water is the fundament of life. Water is necessary to everything. It is essential. Its purity and guarantee are enshrined by its separate treatment in the services provided.
11.45 pm
Therefore, I do not accept what my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister said about mass medication. I do not accept the amendments, which suggest that there should be a democracy about water. Fifty-one people, by failing to vote, should not be able to submit 49 others to the compulsion of swallowing something that may and, I believe is, harmful to them, and which is certainly of no good to them. That is not a matter for democracy. If 99 people said to me that they wished to swallow fluoride, I would not believe that to be a good reason to force it down the throat of the 100th. It is wrong that the one substance that each one of us requires, without which nothing can exist, should be contaminated for the spurious, however vindicated, reason that it may do some good to somebody who swallows it.

Mr. Lawrence: Before my hon. and learned Friend gets carried away, against his predisposition, into voting against the amendments, I point out that, while everybody who is opposed to fluoridation agrees with every word that he has said, we are faced with the fact that a Second Reading was given to the Bill, at which the individual liberty aspect was taken away. We are left, therefore, grasping at the straw of a democratic reflection of people's wishes. Therefore, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will come down at the end, even against his logical disposition, in favour of one or other of these amendments so that he can join us in the Lobby.

Mr. Fairbairn: My hon. and learned Friend will know the phrase in law vir flocci, which means a man of straw. I am not one. I do not grasp at them. I am not looking for straws; I am looking for principles. It is offensive to me that we should even be considering amendments that say that the majority shall say, either by default or by vote, that the minority should be poisoned by that vote. This is not a matter for voting, either through district or any other councils.
I notice that the amendments are, as ever, significantly inappropriate to Scotland. After all, England and Wales are the only places that matter. It only happens that the legislation that we are unfortunately considering tonight arose out of a case in Scotland. If it were not for Scotland—I wish that we had never done it—the beastly Bill would never have been before us. Alas, it is, and alas, by the judgment of one of the senators of the college of justice.
The principle is one from which the House cannot escape. We cannot say that we should give any council, any authority or any majority, the right to dictate to the minority or to the non-voting minority, or to anybody else on whether the one thing on which life depends—pure water—shall be adulterated, for any reason, whether it is for the health of others or ourselves. It is one thing to say that everybody must be vaccinated—no Government ever did—because that is in everybody's interest but it is a very different thing to say that everybody must be vaccinated because some people might benefit from it, although most people are not under threat.

Mr. Golding: Could the hon. Gentleman say clearly to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that we do not need to "sell" the principle because there is to be a Third Reading debate when the principle will again be raised? Will he please tell the hon. and learned Member that he is absolutely right to stick to his guns on the grounds of principle and that he should not try to reach shoddy compromises with a Government that are so much out of touch.

Mr. Fairbairn: I could not understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a word that the hon. Gentleman said, but I assume that he intervened in support of my case. If it was not support, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should go away and take some fluoride. We are considering the concept that elected or unelected bodies should be able to dictate to every single citizen—not just a majority or minority of citizens—that they are to be subjected to something to which they do not wish to be subjected, which is of no help to them and which may do them harm.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) raised an important matter. Large amounts of water from Wales are sent to England. How can one possibly control the fluoridation of that water?

Mr. Donald Stewart: Drink Scottish oil.

Mr. Fairbairn: No, we do not have to drink Scottish oil. We can drink whisky instead. But even the right hon. Gentleman has to drink water with his whisky. Will his district council tell the right hon. Gentleman whether the water he drinks with his whisky contains fluoride? If the majority fail to vote, that is what will happen. Some of us may drink whisky and some of us may choose not to do so, but all of us have got to drink water. So it is not a

voting matter. While I sympathise with the purpose of the amendments, I regret that, because the principle is so strong, they are not sufficient.

Mr. McGuire: I believe that all hon. Members enjoyed the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). He speaks with great eloquence, clarity and force. He believes in what he says. We very much missed him on our Committee, even though we had the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). However, the hon. and learned Member did not have sufficient time in which to raise all the points that he wished to raise.
This is a debating Chamber, and it is sometimes forgotten that we are expected to respond to important points that have been made. I could not agree more with the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross about the principle that he enunicated with such force. We must have some democracy. I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about water. This is not the appropriate time to rehearse why I am against fluoridation. It is mass medication, and there is no escape from it. If we do not try to get some democracy into it, all those about whom the hon. and learned Gentleman is worried will suffer. Surely it is better that 51 per cent. should vote not to put the fluoride in. I shall support the amendments, and I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to do so too.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) said that he was willing to take advice from experts; in this case medical experts, because I doubt whether philosophers will support the Bill. What happened in the coal mining industry is relevant. Until nationalisation, it was held by experts of the kind on whom the hon. Gentleman intends to rely for guidance that when a miner worked on a coal face the only disease for which he could be compensated was silicosis—silica being the Latin for stone. A miner who worked on a coal face and breathed in coal dust could not get compensation because it was thought that it did not do him any harm. That was the barmy proposition that was enshrined in law.
Hon. Members can examine the compensation cases. Lawyers have addressed us in this debate. They will know that the old workmen's compensation legislation gave more work to lawyers than any other legislation that has been placed on the statute book. Much of the work arose from the words "arising out of and "in the course of' one's employment. I used to deal with this in my timid layman's fashion.
Experts similar to those who are guiding us on this Bill said that coal dust did not harm a man. They supported that contention by saying that when people had heartburn they sucked coal. I am talking about people in Lancashire, but no doubt this happened in other coal mining areas. People felt that there was some correlation between sucking coal and disappearance of the heartburn, and therefore the experts said that coal dust would not do a man harm. They said that it was not like silicosis or getting the dust from stone. The legislation laid down that for a man to receive compensation for a dust reticulation disease—that is, silicosis—he had to have worked for a certain number of years in a heading or a place with so much silica content.
If a man had pains in his chest, suffered from breathlessness and had all the symptoms that we now regard as proof positive that a man has pneumoconiosis —the terms that has been used since nationalisation—


and if he had worked in a heading with stone, he could get compensation for silicosis. Another person who had the disease which we now call pneumoconiosis did not get compensation. People with pneumoconiosis died quickly. If it was allied with tuberculosis, it was called galloping consumption. We proved that the ruling in regard to compensation was utter and damaging nonsense for many hard-working men.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is about to relate his remarks to consultation.

Mr. McGuire: We have been told that experts are guiding us on this matter. I am trying to prove that they have not always been right. There is a long history of their advising people that something was not harmful, and then being proved wrong. I do not believe that adding a poison to water does anybody good.
12 midnight
I am not in favour of referendums to test public opinion. Indeed, I urge the Government not to touch them with a barge pole. I accept that hon. Members are often under pressure from constituents to put matters to the test by that means, but I regard the referendum as a soft option which does not produce the right answer, because it all depends on who frames the question. For example, if those who have spoken on the new clause framed the question, fluoride would not be added to the water.
However, there are occasions when referendums have a use. For example, they are useful to test local opinion on whether an area should be wet or dry. In that type of case there is no difficulty in framing the question. In that context, I am probably addressing Opposition Members of a party other than mine.
The Government are in a difficult position. Following a case in Scotland, they have introduced the Bill to make clear what was previously thought to have been clear but which the Scottish judgment said was rather dicey. The Bill will enable authorities which were adding fluoride to continue doing so, and those which were not doing so to be able to do so.
Let us be clear that the payroll vote won the day on this issue. One needs only to check through the way in which hon. Members voted to see that, and I have no doubt that those hon. Members will file in to vote later. I am appealing, therefore, to the infantry on the Back Benches; those who occasionally must march and go over the top.
I say that because the Government do not have the courage of their convictions. They are saying, "If you want to add fluoride, continue doing so." Presumably those authorities which have already added it by underhanded means, so to speak, will be able to remove it, if they wish, on a democratic basis. It seems strange that the Government should be prepared to leave to unelected, undemocratic bodies a decision which they will not take themselves. The reason for that is simple—not even the payroll vote would support them on any other basis. In other words, although the Government have an overall majority of 143 in the House they will not force their view on any body.
That is a sound principle if the Government are saying, "We are leaving the decision to the democratic view of the people." Unfortunately, the people who will make the decision will not be subject to public accountability. They will be appointed and, presumably, will do what the Minister tells them. That is why I urge hon. Members to

think deeply about this issue, for we may be taking a step which goes against everything in which this democratically elected Chamber believes.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend was urging the use of the referendum to decide whether fluoride should be added to water.

Mr. McGuire: No, I was not.

Dr. Marek: In that case, my hon. Friend was speaking of the use of the referendum—he probably had in mind certain areas of Wales — in deciding whether areas should be wet or dry. That would result in those areas which wished to be wet on Sundays to be wet, and those which wished to remain dry to remain dry. If one decides to add fluoride to water in an area, the people there have no choice; they all have fluoride. I am not sure that I followed my hon. Friend's argument completely, and perhaps he would develop his case.

Mr. McGuire: I regret that my hon. Friend misunderstood me. I have been gently rebuked this evening by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but what I must aspire to in the few years remaining to me in the House, subject to the will of other hon. Members, is to be as succinct as my hon. Friend.
I did not say that a referendum should be used. I said that we should not touch a referendum with a barge pole. I said that, if we entertained the idea, we then had to consider who frames the question. I referred to an example of west and dry in a local area of the country where a referendum may be the best way to test public opinion. However, I am bound to tell my hon. Friend that, if as imperfect an instrument as a referendum is used to test the public wish, those who do not want to be wet and those who do not want to be dry can maintain their opposing positions without infringing anybody's liberty.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman seems to agree that it is simple enough to draft a question for a referendum on whether a particular area wishes to be wet or dry on a Sunday. Will he explain why he thinks that it is more difficult to draft a simple question on whether in a particular area people wish to have fluoride in their water, because I would have thought that the two issues were similarly capable of simple questions?

Mr. McGuire: I do not. First, I want to emphasise that a referendum to judge the will of a nation is a bad instrument. If the Liberal party now says that it believes in the principle of referendum to test the will of a nation, not only in regard to fluoridation but in all matters, it can so decide.
On the matter of framing the question, I believe that if I were allowed to frame the question, assuming that a referendum had been decided upon as the instrument to test the public will, the vote would probably be 93 per cent. against. However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) framed the question, while he may not hope for 99 per cent. in favour, he would be able to frame it in such a way that the public would fall for it, and the vote would be 93 per cent. in favour.

Mr. Golding: Would not the best advice to my hon. Friend be to stick to Lancashire and to stay out of Wales? Would my hon. Friend agree that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has illustrated the dilemma? Is it not different to ask, "Do you want fluoride


in the water?" from, "Do you want extra fluoride in the water?" There are at least two questions that can be put. The result depends on which question is asked.

Mr. McGuire: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) suggested that the two issues were similar, and asked why in my view a referendum in north Wales would be appropriate but a referendum on the issue of fluoride would not be appropriate. Has the hon. and learned Member considered that, if a referendum were held in north Wales in a local area on whether people wished to have drink freely available on the one day that hitherto had been designated as dry, namely, Sunday, and subsequently people desired to change their minds, at the end of the day nobody's liberty would be infringed as, indeed, would be the case if one decided by referendum to have fluoride in the water because people would have to have it whether they liked it or not? The man who votes to remain dry, even if the rest go wet, will remain dry. There is, therefore, a fundamental difference.
The Government are convinced that it is a good thing to allow authorities to put fluoride into water. They will not take the decision themselves. I have illustrated why. Not even the payroll vote would be able to vote that way and sustain the argument.
Therefore, it follows that if this is to be done democratically, it must be done through precisely this new clause in its limited and imperfect way. We are saying, "Let democratically elected bodies test the temperature." People will have been appointed—some of the so-called experts. I have said that we should take some of their expertness with a pinch of salt. They will be able to override the democratic wishes of the elected people representing constituencies. I ask all Back Benchers, democratically elected, to give the measure the boot in the Lobby.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is indeed great danger in allowing appointed members to decide this vital question? It is possible that those appointed members will be connected with industries from which fluoride is generated as an industrial waste as well as an industrial poison. Does not the hon. Gentleman therefore feel that there could be much vested interest in the decisions taken by appointed people? Whether there are flaws in some of the amendments that have been proposed, they give the people a say as to whether they are to be compulsorily medicated through the water supply.

Mr. McGuire: I am trying to learn how to be succinct, so I shall just say yes.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Truly this one, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, is making strange bedfellows of us all. In this important area of freedom of choice, I should like to refer in particular to amendment No. 2, in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft). I feel that I like his amendment and want to support it, but I am worried about a certain wooliness to which my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) referred.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) gave us the stricture that this is not the time or the occasion to rehearse the arguments that we went

through on Second Reading, but I feel that we must not lose sight of the important fundamenal principles that are involved and that we must continue to bear in mind as we consider—

Mr. Golding: I must have been as incomprehensible to the hon. Gentleman as to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). I said that we must stick to the principle. We must remember the principle. On Third Reading we can vote against it. I was rebuking the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) who will accept fluoride in beer because of the vote on Second Reading. I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he is always as comprehensible in all his contributions.
I feel that the great principles involved are, first, that the measure represents a dubious health addition. For all the evidence from experts that I have found, one can find an equal expert with an opposite view. Clearly, the subject is not proven. The best evidence that I have ever seen suggests that the only proven medical advantage from fluoride is for unborn children and children below the age of six months. However, beyond the age of six months, the evidence suggests that the addition of fluoride moves to being a disadvantage. In turn, this is the grossest interference with the liberties of the individual, a complete removal of freedom of choice.
Who then decides on whether fluoride should be added to our water supply? In the Bill before us it is to be the health authorities.
12.15 am
As many of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen have already said this evening, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to suggest that there is a form of local responsibility emanating from the concept that a health authority should decide this supremely important question. Who is it accountable to? There is a plethora of bodies coming under or believed to be the health authorities, but not actually the health authorities. There are community health councils, family practitioner committees, joint consultative committees — the list is almost endless. I trust that all the worthy and well-intentioned people who are involved in those committees fully understand the responsibilities they already have before this addition. But I am fully convinced that the public do not, and certainly do not feel that they are in any way the accountable or responsible bodies that should take these decisions. There must be some form of veto that elected authorities can exercise in this area as the representatives of the local population.
Amendment No. 2, put forward in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) confuses me when it talks about the "county council or councils" or the "district council" for the areas involved. There does not seem to be any clarity as to which authority is pre-eminent. Rather, it seems to be an invitation to conflict between the two levels of local government.
To clarify the matter, I would suggest—and it would certainly be my own preference — that the decision ought to be at district council level. A local decision such as this ought to be at a really local level.
I cannot help being aware of my own situation in Cardiff. Cardiff city council is the district council and one


of two district authorities in south Glamorgan. South Glamorgan has a population of 400,000. The city council, as one component, has a population of 300,000. I know full well that the Cardiff city council, which has on many occasions indicated its opinion that there is widespread opposition to the addition of fluoride, would find it intolerable, as the council of the capital city of Wales—with no disrespect to the neighbouring Vale of Glamorgan district authority—if in any way the Vale were able to impose fluoridation on the people of Cardiff regardless of the decision of the city council.
I fully subscribe to the point that has already been made. I do not like this Bill. I do not want to see it go through. But if we have to have it we must have the very best form of local control that can be devised.

Mr. Fairbairn: Is it not rather absurd that the House of Commons should be debating local control on a free vote when the pay roll people are waiting to vote us down?

Mr. Jones: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made that point, leaving me with no necessity to go any further down that road. I hope that this Bill will not yet find its way on to the statute book but that, if it does, we must bring in proper local control.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best), in moving the first amendment before the House this evening, touched briefly and quite properly on the underlying concerns which most hon. Members who have spoken so far have about the purpose of the Bill. It would be quite wrong, with the Second Reading debate behind us, for me to set out the public health and other arguments in favour of fluoridation which many people in the medical and dental profession share. What we are talking about this evening is the worries of many of my hon. Friends and many hon. Gentleman about the threat that a Bill giving these powers to local authorities, water authorities and health authorities poses to the freedom of choice of individuals. We have heard the expression "mass medication" used more than once in the course of the debate.
Most of these amendments seek to give the general public and the individuals who might be affected by the exercise of these powers a greater influence, if not a decisive voice, in the eventual decision.
I wish to be helpful, so I shall not devote a great deal of time to a direct challenge to the main underlying argument, although I fail to see that this great issue of freedom of choice is posed in quite the way that it has been presented so far by the exercise of proposed powers by health and water authorities.

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Clarke: If my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to explain why I do not share his view, he might then rise to challenge it.
We are talking about the public water supply. It is an inescapable practical fact that we all have to have, in any given location, the same public water supply with the same additives or lack of additives in the water coming out of the tap. It is not yet possible to distribute water so that neighbouring houses can have water coming out of the taps to the particular mix chosen by the owner of the household. From time immemorial, for one health reason or another — my hon. friend may think that some are

stronger reasons than others—there have been additions to what otherwise would have been natural water for the benefit of the mass of the nation.
I know that I tried and did not succeed in Committee to persuade my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) to put forward the man who might take the ultimate view on individual choice and say that he has heard all the arguments about chlorine and listened to all the clever scientific people — who have been heavily derided throughout the debate—saying that it is essential to put it in water to cure typhoid, but that he does not agree with that. He does no want doctors putting in mass medication when he is not sure that they might not ultimately be proved to be wrong—as the doctors have been proved to be wrong in the past. He might wish to assert his individual freedom to have no chlorine in the water coming out of his taps, and would prefer to have pure water.
I know that that is an extreme example, but we all know that the answer to that man would be that while we respect the courage of the man's convictions, common sense and practice are against him and he cannot have water without chlorine without putting at risk the health of everyone else.

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I give way to my hon. and learned Friend, whose interest in water I find especially moving, as I had not previously appreciated that pure water ever passed his lips.

Mr. Fairbairn: What my right hon. and learned Friend does not understand is that, whatever does pass my lips, it must have whatever water this beastly Government will put in it. Whether I drink it in the form of whisky, gin or anything else, if they add fluoride I have to drink it. Let us get away from that argument.
My right hon. and learned Friend should understand—and this is an argument of the greatest importance—that if we add chlorine to the water it is to ensure that everybody has potable water. If we add fluoride to the water, it is in the hope that some people—not all people —may be protected from a disease that nobody else has. That is a wholly different principle.

Mr. Clarke: As I come from south of the border, I am a beer drinker. I might introduce my hon. and learned Friend to the prospect that some beer at least is brewed by breweries that take their water from springs, not from the public water supply. If every health and water authority in the country was seized with the idea of putting fluoride in the public water supply, my hon. and learned Friend might still find some fluoride-free liquid.
On my hon. and learned Friend's serious point, of course he is saying that in one case the argument for overriding individual choice is more compelling than in the second case. I am pointing out that if he is saying that the absolute nature of individual choice is what matters, there are undoubtedly some health grounds upon which long ago that principle has been completely overridden with the public water supply.
My point is that, although we are all sensitive about individual choice, we are talking about the public water supply which every members of the public must have. There will be differing opinions. A number of doctors and dentists receiving the public water supply want fluoride in the water. The public will have different opinions, and


somebody must come to a collective decision because a block of the country has to have the same water coming out of the taps.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the collective decision that we all want, and which the majority of the people in the country want, is that no decision should be taken to fluoridate the water? Is he further aware that when he keeps interchanging chlorine and fluoride, he is missing the essential point in regard to democracy? If people were asked whether they wanted water that carried typhoid and malaria or preferred to have water that was chlorinated and might save their lives, it is a reasonable assumption that nearly every sane person in the country would rather have chlorinated water. If people are asked whether they want fluoride, which will not save their lives but delay the onset of dental caries in children's teeth for a limited period of their life, the overwhelming majority will say that they do not want it. That is the important difference.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for explaining what he believes to be the important difference. He has confirmed the point that was made first by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). We are not discussing individual choice. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton did not refer to individual choice in his intervention, but based his argument on his belief that the majority of people do not want fluoride. He believes that that should over-ride the individual choice of the minority of people who he believes want fluoride in water. He is being led off into his opinions about the virtues of fluoride and its impact on public health as compared with other additives to water. I am merely saying, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, who said that somehow there is some great principle of individual choice here, that I still fail to see how that stalwart body of people who wish to have a substance that exists naturally in water in some parts of the country not to be in their water can assume that their individual liberty can be taken so far that everybody's water must be changed to accommodate them.
We do not intend to sweep away the right of the individual to have a chance to influence decisions on these matters. Although, by giving the Bill a Second Reading, the House has not accepted that the absolute individual choice should be installed in the law, nobody is saying that there should be no decision making process or, least of all, as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) argued, that the Government, by some edict, will now make all decisions. I remind the House that the whole purpose of the Bill was to restore the law to that which had been followed in practice by water and health authorities and successive Governments. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton said, that is local decision making. We are proposing that decisions should be taken by the correct and responsible local authority. The Government have no wish to impose choices on those authorities.
People have campaigned for and against fluoride for many years. Different parts of the country have come to different conclusions. If it was not for a Scottish case, we should not be here debating the issue in the middle of the night. The Government are merely putting back in the

hands of the correct local authorities discretion to make a decision about whether fluoride should be added to local water.

Mr. Best: Does my right hon. and learned Friend trust health authorities never to make mistakes?

Mr. Clarke: No, and for a number of their mistakes they are held accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We know that if we do not hold them to account, we shall have to account to the House for their mistakes. We have made it clear that we are leaving it to health authorities to reach a judgment whether to apply for fluoride to be added. The Bill is not intended to pave the way for a great new national campaign, such as we certainly have not conducted during our first five years in office.

Mr. Lawrence: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend being unusually disingenuous and naive? Is not the position that because of uncertainty about the law, few water authorities were fluoridating water supplies? Now that he has removed that state of uncertainty which may have put them at financial risk, they will almost inevitably, double, treble or quadruple the volume of water that is being fluoridated. At present 10 per cent. is fluoridated. In a year or two between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. may be fluoridated. Does my right hon. and learned Friend not appreciate that reality?

Mr. Clarke: It is my unworldly nature which keeps me in this post, so I do not entirely appreciate my hon. and learned Friend's point. There has been doubt about the law, which is why the Government offered an indemnity to authorities against the threat of legal proceedings if they decided to go ahead with fluoridation. They have not faced the financial penalties that my hon. and learned Friend described.
We are talking about local decision making, and I agreed with some of my hon. and learned Friend's speech. All the amendments and the debate are addressed to the question of which local authorities should take the decision, and how they should conduct themselves when they do so, so that they do not ride roughshod over individual opinion.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Why does the Minister regard it as preferable to leave the decision making to a nominated body when there are ample elected local bodies available to take the decision on a democratic basis?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he leads me precisely to my point. The question at issue relates to the choice of authorities. Why does the Bill, as drafted by the Government, give the decision to the authorities which have been taking that decision for the past 20 years? There are two good reasons.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That is rubbish.

Mr. Clarke: That is a statement of historical fact.

Mr. Winterton: That is rubbish. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, until local government reorganisation, water authorities were under the control of local authorities, which were democratically elected.

Mr. Clarke: I am not sure that all the private water companies which were succeeded by the present water authorities, were. The two authorities to which we have


chosen to give the decision-making power, are those which the House has made responsible first for the public water supply and, secondly for public health. It is only on that, which I would have thought was a fairly rational basis, that the choice of those two bodies was made.
The water authorities are obviously charged with all the practical, technical and other problems that arise from the distribution of water. The district health authorities are charged with all responsibilities for public health, especially preventative medicine, health education and so on, which is an important part of their task. That is not the conclusive part of my argument, but at least in deciding which local bodies should be responsible for local decision-making, its beginning has the rationality of choosing the only bodies which have any direct responsibility for either the water supply or public health.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister accept that one of the problems for hon. Members who have tabled amendments is that we recall vividly that he instructed health authorities on, for example, privatisation, that they must carry out his instructions? He did not do that only through a circular, but he wrote to the chairmen of the regional health authorities—I admit that they are not the tiers about which we are debating— saying that they must carry out his instructions sent by circular and also what he said, even if it was not sent by circular. The worry is that if there is only one chain of command and no local democratic element, the Minister may well do the same again. Although I am in favour of what the Minister wants to do, I want the decision to be taken locally.

Mr. Clarke: As other hon. Members have been drawing distinctions between different arguments, I draw a distinction between the activities of health authorities when it comes to making the best use of public money—we have taken action to ensure that health authorities do not of their own volition forgo savings that they could make, by testing the cost of their support services by going to tender—and a decision on fluoride.
I can repeat the undertaking that I have given—the Government will not give any directions to those local bodies about whether they should add fluoride. I shall leave this to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), but I suspect that the Opposition will not commit themselves to some great national campaign to add fluoride to the water by putting pressure on those local bodies, and if ever the great coalition arises it is clear that the alliance will not chip in directions to them so we have a timeless prospect before us whereby the matter will be left to local discretion. We then move to how best that local discretion can be exercised.
All the amendments try to introduce into the decision making of health and water authorities an element which will reassure us all that they are more responsible to the public by bringing in elected local government on the argument that that means that an element of democracy is injected into the process.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister and his colleagues have appointed the health authority and the water authority members in south Yorkshire. Let us suppose that the south Yorkshire county council, all the metropolitan district councils and all the parish councils in south Yorkshire which are largely dominated by my party, decided that they were flatly opposed to the fluoridation of water, and that a health authority and water

authority, appointed by a Conservative Government, were to ignore the views of the elected local authorities. Does he deny that he would sustain the water and health authorities in their complete disregard of local, democratic views?

Mr. Clarke: It is clear from all the debates that we have had on fluoride that the idea that local democracy will be ridden roughshod over on any party political basis is mistaken. We are on yet another of those subjects, which I seem to be hitting with unerring regularity week by week, where the party divisions are being shattered as we go along.
The Government are reserving to those authorities which are responsible for decision making, the decision-making power in their own sphere. At the moment, if any metropolitan county or any district within a metropolitan county passed any resolution about the contents of the public water supply, it would have no practical effect because the house, in its wisdom, has not yet given local authorities responsibility for public water. Similarly, if all the district councils—

Mr. Meadowcroft: It has taken it away.

Mr. Clarke: Exactly. The House, in its wisdom, has taken it away. If every local authority in south Yorkshire were to pass a resolution about the hospital service that would be an expression of opinion, but it would not be decisive, because the House has not given local authorities any responsibility for that kind of public health.
For that reason, ther is, to say the least, a distinct illogicality in saying—at this hour of the morning it would appear that the most vital part of the Health Service is the public water system — as various of these amendments suggest, that the decision-making power should be transferred to bodies which have no direct responsibility for any other aspect of the subject.

Mr. Wigley: rose‐

Mr. Clarke: It is more than that. I am not just standing on what seems to me to be the basic constitutional principle that we cannot give one public body decision-making powers for a matter for which it has no other responsibility.
I suggest also that we must have a decision-making process that makes some sense, whether for or against fluoride. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton will forgive me for saying that in Committee I expressed the view that one or two of his amendments were plainly of a wrecking nature. The aim was to cloud the issue by saying that a number of bodies' opinions should coincide before fluoride could be added to the water supply, thereby making it impossible ever to arrive at a positive conclusion.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way again, but I wish to make this argument plain so that I do not have to keep chopping into it. I remind the House that the boundaries of the various bodies do not coincide. Water authorities cover a large area and the pattern of distribution of water means that they can alter the water supply in ways determined by purely practical considerations. The areas of water authorities do not match those of health authorities; in their turn, the health authorities' areas do not match boundaries of the district councils or the county councils. If we give all these bodies decision-making power — I am


conceding to the skill of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton as on of the authors of the proposition that is before us—it would be necessary to achieve a consensus within a jigsaw of water authorities, health authorities and local authorities of different tiers before fluoride could be added to the water supply. I hope that it is an unworthy suspicion on my part that one of the reasons for the new clauses is an attempt to ensure that fluoride is not added to the water suuply anywhere. I accept also that it is part of local democracy and a concern for the individual.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister worried that he is dependent upon an unholy alliance between do-gooders on the one hand and the payroll vote on the other? Is he not worried also that apparently he cannot persuade the House, or those hon. Members who are present, to take an interest in his arguments? When he talks about the will of the House he is really talking about members of the Government who have been dragooned to stay up tonight to vote with him in what is supposed to be a free vote.

Mr. Clarke: It is not an unholy alliance. The payroll vote is always doing good in the House and I have no doubt that it will do so on many future occasions. Yet again, I find myself involved in a passionate debate. I have been involved in others fairly recently in which I have felt fairly strongly. I am interested in the number of hon. Members who are in their places at 12.42 am to express a view about fluoride but I am not sure that the general public share their great concern. I said in Committee that I had not received a letter from one of my constituents on the issue but I have now received about six.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister's last argument is an illustration of how ludicrous it is to debate such an important issue at this time of the morning. Does he accept that there is no problem in getting authorities in a conterminous as the parish councils in England and the community councils in Wales are conterminous with the water authorities or health authorities? Even more important, if a volume of opinion is expressed through democratically elected bodies within an area that is represented by a health authority that opposes the introduction of fluoride, does he accept that the health authority should give due weight to that opinion although it is not a sanction on it?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusion, but everything depends on what we mean by "due weight". I am saying that the decision-making process cannot be divided among a myriad of authorities. That is impossible. For all the reasons that I have given, that would lead to confusion and foolish decision making. If we are to preserve the present position and say that health authorities and water authorities are logically the right choice as decision makers, we cannot bring elected local authorities into the decision-making processes. The question arises, and starkly in new clause 1, which has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, how can we pay due regard to the expressions of opinion that come from local authorities? Due regard should be given to the opinions of the general public as well as those of local authorities and community health councils.
The House should resist all those amendments which appear to give a decision-making power to authorities which are not charged with any responsibility. After all, this House has no day-to-day decision-making responsibilities for local government and local government has no decision-making power over central Government. We should consider how best to consult the public, including elected bodies.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is difficult to accept my right hon. and learned Friend's assurances about the influence of guidelines, letters and pressure when his Department is financing the Fluoridation Society — which promotes fluoridation — to the tune of £14,000. How can my right hon. and learned Friend say that he and his Department are unbiased in this matter?

Mr. Clarke: I did not know that we financed the Fluoridation Society. The idea that the £14,000 involved guides our decision is misguided.
The Government introduced the Bill for one reason only. In law there was some doubt and that doubt was turned into confusion when a lady, in Glasgow, with no teeth brought a case to the Scottish court. A Scottish lawyer heard all the evidence for and against fluoride, and decided that fluoride was beneficial and posed no danger to the public but that the health authority had no grounds upon which to put it in the water. This is a serious and non-biased attempt to restore to the law the commonsense position which we had always believed to exist.

Mr. Fairbairn: My right hon. and learned Friend should not mock so important a principle so stupidly, so late at night, when many people regard the fundamental of life—water—as important. His right hon. and hon. Friends might be waiting to vote for him, but he will not impress the people of the country if he makes a mockery of an important principle.
The case to which he referred was brought on principle —whether the woman had teeth or not. If my right hon. and learned Friend does not deal with it on principle he will insult the House, the people of the country and the Government of which he is a member.
Will the Minister understand? Water is the only substance that all of us have to drink. It is not a matter of democracy, of pay-roll votes or majorities. It is a matter of purity for all of us.

Mr. Clarke: We do not wish to lower the tone of debate late at night. I do not deride my hon. and learned Friend's principles. I tried to explain that I do not agree that the great cause of individual liberty is raised by fluoride. My hon. and learned Friend says that we are talking about the quality of water. Because of the constituents of our diet we need all sorts of nourishments and individual liberty might be involved in all sorts of respects. I was deliberately not trying to become involved in that when we are talking about consultations.

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose—

Mr. Frank Dobson: The hon. Gentleman has not been here very long.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for giving way, especially because the hon. Gentleman said that I have not been here very long. That is true, and I apologise. I have been


attending a Committee. How precisely will this consultation go ahead? Obviously, before we vote on this issue, we want to know precisely what the Government have in mind.

Mr. Clarke: The opportunity for me to say so is getting nearer. I have reached the stage in my argument where I can say no more about why we should not share the decision-making process throughout the various tiers of local government together with the health and water authorities. We are talking about how to pay proper regard to individual opinions and how to consult.
At an earlier stage, the Government reiterated their determination to ensure that health authorities should consult before taking this decision. We could ensure by administrative guidance that that is done, but it is plain from the mood of the House that hon. Members—I trust that they accept my assurances on the Government's behalf — are not sure that the Government's successors will adhere to our assurances. They need something more positive than just an undertaking that we would require health authorities to consult administratively in the usual way.
I am prepared to say that we accept that the Bill should be amended so as to place a statutory duty on the health authorities to undertake proper public consultation before deciding whether to apply to the water authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn may justifiably say that new clause 1 lays such a statutory duty on the health authority. I believe that that new clause is too narrow. I suggest that my hon. Friend should stipulate only the local authorities—my hon. Friend takes every tier
county council, borough or district council, community or parish council"ô
and then take in one consumer organisation, which is the community health council. We would certainly expect the health authority to consult that council all the time on this or any other important local matter.
I am most sympathetic to my hon. Friend's new clause, but I would prefer the Bill not to include it. I would prefer to be allowed to give an undertaking that in another place the Government will move an amendment laying upon the health authorities a statutory duty to undertake more general public consultation, with the obvious implication —as with matters of this kind—that public consultation would begin by taking in elected local authorities which are accustomed to participating in this process. That process would, therefore, be able to take in a wider range of bodies and opinions in the way in which most public bodies are accustomed to doing when they consult.

Mr. Lawrence: What reassurance is that really? I have already given the example of how, in a sense, the SevernTrent water authority was able to take the pulse of popular opinion in the area it covered when every single county council, practically every district council and an overwhelming majority of parish councils said no. Nevertheless the Severn-Trent water authority, seized of that knowledge, decided to fluoridate. What reassurance is there in the amendment suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend?

Mr. Clarke: I am not altogether sure whether consultation was lacking in that case. The Severn Trent water authority does not fluoridate the water in a large part

of its area. It successfully and popularly fluoridates the water in Birmingham in particular. That fluoridation has been occurring for years.
If my hon. and learned Friend is saying that by consultation he means that the authorities should be bound by the reactions of particular people to the consultation process—he lays heavy emphasis on the local authority — I have to say that that is not consultation. It is an argument that always creeps into every consultation process in Government. I believe that, when agreeing that one is going through a process of consultation, one does not say that one is binding oneself to accept the majority reaction to that consultation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.") The amazement is only at the ordinary meaning of the word in the English language. Consultation that is binding in its results is not consultation, but is handing over the decision-making power to those whom one consults.
I cannot be accused of shrinking from making clear what I have described. I shall not rehearse all the arguments about not dividing the decision making among countless different bodies. We must stick to the logical decision-making authorities. They should consult and hold their meetings in public, and should be accountable to the public in that way. The best way to achieve this without attempting some radical rewriting of the statutory powers and responsibilities of the various local authorities charged with these duties is to lay a statutory duty to consult on the health authority, and that is what I shall propose. As that cannot be dealt with by any of the amendments or new clauses, I undertake that the Government will do that in another place.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Is my right hon. and learned Friend not saying, when he talks about the free will of the House choosing to flouridate the water and local people deciding to put flouride in their water locally, that here, the payroll vote, told by him, will decide to put flouride in the water, and that locally, the health authority, appointed by him, will tell us to put flouride in the water?

Mr. Clarke: I have made jokes about this before, but as a member of the payroll vote, I like to remind hon. Members occasionally that I am here as a Member of Parliament, accountable to my constituents, just like any other hon. Member. If it turns out that more of the payroll vote is here tonight than any other group of hon. Members, the House should abide by the consequences.
I have already made it clear that we are leaving this choice to the discretion of local authorities. The history of the last decade has made it clear that they will not rush into these decisons, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) suggests. The idea that we shall remove from the health authorities those who do not vote for flouride, as the hon. Member for Ashfield suggested, is another matter far from our minds. We have a number of other considerations to take into account when appointing those members than their view on flouride, which has never entered into our considerations.
I am not dealing with this matter frivolously. On Second Reading, hon. Members were concerned about individual liberties, choice and all the rest of it. I ask those hon. Members who have spoken in the debate to address themselves to the need for legislation in a sensible form to give two bodies only responsibility for deciding those matters where they have the total responsibility in every


other way. They should acknowledge our desire to take account of public feelings and opinion by putting in the statutory duty to consult at a later stage. I hope that I have made it clear why I think that that is the right way to proceed, and why it is sensitive and responsive to the minority of people who feel strongly on this subject. There is a better way to go about it than putting into the Bill an unworkable proposition.

Mr. Hardy: I shall try to be brief. I am not terribly excited either way about fluoridation, but the Minister for Health has made me more determined to stay a little later because I do not like his definition of the word "accountable". The two authorities to whom he will give power are accountable to the Government and not to those whom they may serve with dedication. I am anxious about the matter from a different point of view, and one that has not been mentioned so far.
If the country has any resources available and wishes to do something about water, it would be healthier to devote those resources to improving the cleanliness of Britain's rivers and streams than to adding chemicals to drinking water when a large proportion of the population does not want them added. Quite a large proportion of the population want to see the rivers and streams brought to a healthy standard.
In south Yorkshire, there is a foully polluted river, with a road by it named Salmon Pastures. I would prefer that money to be spent upon making sure that Salmon Pastures ran by the side of a river that is wholesome rather than that the people who live in that road should have water which the Minister believes to be healthy but which does not please them.
1 am
Another important aspect is that many people do not yet have a decent water supply in their homes. Only this weekend I encountered a constituent who lives in Hellaby in the parish of Bramley who cannot have a decent supply of water in his home because he does not have the money to pay for it. The water authority will not give him a grant to improve his water supply, but it can afford to put this stuff into people's water, whether they like it or not.

Dr. Marek: As 60 per cent. of the river water in London is treated effluent, surely it would be far better if my hon. Friend turned his attention to cleaning up the river rather than worrying about what the level of residual fluoride in the river water might be.

Mr. Hardy: I think my hon. Friend is right. We could be establishing the potability of the water in the rivers and streams of Britain, but this Government are holding back progress. When I first became a Member of this House in 1970 I was advised that by the early 1980s the rivers in Yorkshire would reach at least class 2. I did not expect that by the 1980s the rivers and streams of Yorkshire would reach potability standard, or class 1, but I did expect the rivers in south Yorkshire—the Rother, the Dearne and the Don—to be at least two grades higher and capable of sustaining fish for the recreation of my constituents. However, this Government do not allow the water authority to spend the amount of money that it would like to spend in order to create a decent environment.
If local people were allowed to determine their priorities, I am sure that their first priority would be the

enhancement of the environment, not the addition of a chemical to the water. But what about the poor souls who do not have an adequate water supply? This constituent of mine in Hellaby is a war pensioner, a poor man. He does not have sufficient money with which to improve the water supply to his home. What is the use of adding fluoride to his water supply if all that he gets out of his tap is an attentuated trickle? The Government's priorities are all wrong.
The Minister referred to the medical advice that he sought. May I ask him what vetinary advice he has sought? Many of the people of Rawmarsh, which is in my constituency, know that six years ago one of my dairy farmers had a very good herd of shorthorn cows, 40 of which died. We established after a great deal of work that they died because this farmer had put on to his land sewage sludge that had been provided by the water authority. As the Minister stated, the water authority is not accountable to anybody. That sewage sludge contained fluoride salts. The beasts died of fluorosis.
If the Brampton Bierlow parish council or those who represent the district of Rawmarsh on the metropolitan borough council were to express the concern felt by the people who live in those areas, their views would not even be considered. They would not even be consulted. If they decided to inform the health authority of their view, the health authority's view would be sustained by the Minister, even if it flew in the face of the views of every local authority in my area. This Government are not particularly worried about the Labour-controlled authorities in south Yorkshire.
I am not suggesting that the addition of fluoride to the water would cause fluorosis in human beings or in a large number of cows, but the fact is that people in that area know that those cows and a very expensive pedigree bull suffered the skeletal destruction that is the consequence of this disease. I am advised by people who are more skilled in cattle farming than I am that cows are highly susceptible to fluorine salts. They can develop fluorosis easily. After a considerable battle and an Adjournment debate in the House, we forced the water authority to pay compensation for those 40 animals.
The Minister may think that the fluoride that will be added to the water will do our teeth good, but cattle at many farms drink from the public water supply. If there is within the natural vegetation of the farms a high level of indigenous fluoride we must ask the Minister whether adding fluoride to the drinking water which the cows will consume will increase the risk of fluorosis in those herds.

Mr. Golding: The case of the Government will surely be that although the cows died, they died with healthy teeth.

Mr. Hardy: I hope that when my hon. Friend next fishes in south Yorkshire he will catch fish. His ability to catch fish there would be improved if the Government withdrew this proposal and devoted the same resources to improving the water supply.
The Government are apparently not interested in whether we have cows, judging by their policy on dairy fanning. The Minister should ensure that the veterinary point is considered properly. The remaining dairy farmers in many parts of England will want an assurance that they can continue to provide drinking water from the public reservoir for their cattle without increasing the risk of


fluorosis, which quite a few farmers have experienced. If a dairy farm is to windward of a brick works, or if it is in the vicinity of an aluminium smelter or an open hearth steel furnace, there is an additional risk of fluorosis. If the cattle in such areas drink from the public water supply, the risk may be greater.
The Minister may feel that the payment of compensation would be sufficient to allow fluoridation to take place. I am not sure that that is the case. If a man has spent 40 or 50 years building up a good herd of pedigree cows, he needs to know that if he can survive the Community's dairy policy, he will also be able to survive the fluoridation of the water supply. That point has not yet been answered to the satisfaction of dairy farmers.
Nor has the point been answered to the satisfaction of the elected local authorities. The Minister used the words "local authorities" in a sense which is not generally accepted in the House. We believe that local authorities mean those elected by the people and not appointed by a Government who are not supported in many parts of the north of England. They are not supported in my area. There will be even less support for them if they use the payroll vote high-handedly to compel us to accept medication which we view with reservation and suspicion.
Several questions remain to be answered. First, why is it that we can afford to add a chemical to the water while rivers are foul and open sewers? Secondly, why is it that we can afford to add a chemical to the water when a disabled war pensioner has not got the money to provide an adequate water supply in his own home and the water authority refuses to make any payment towards it? Thirdly, why is it that we can afford to act with contumely and contempt and give further cause for anxiety to dairy farmers who are suffering greatly already? Those points must be answered in another place if not here.

Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister made a serious mistake in the way that he approached the debate on this issue and did a disservice to hon. Members who have stayed in the Chamber until this hour to discuss a matter about which they feel strongly.
In the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intellectual convolutions to try to justify an indefensible case, he finally argued the sanctity of the quango. He thought that his local committees would be superior to any elected institution and superior to the choice of the individual. It was not for the Government to make the decision, he said —although the payroll vote in the House will indirectly impose it — and it was not for local government or for the individual to make the decision. The specially created quangos, established by the Government, would make the decisions. He is either calculatedly confusing the issue, or he is himself confused about it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to draw a parallel between chlorine and fluoride. He seems not to understand that there is all the difference in the world between adding a substance to water to remove potential illness that is carried in and spread by that water, and fluoride, which is added to deal with ailments which are not related to the water supply. He deliberately refused to face that point.
It is no good the right hon. and learned Gentleman trying to buy off hon. Members with statutory consultation. We know what that can mean in organisations and groups of people who, for the best motives, are convinced that they know what is best for

their fellow citizens. Despite any requirement for statutory consultation, there is no protection against the arbitrariness of the bigoted, of those who are driven by prejudices and preferences. In no way is consultation to be accepted as a diversion from the basic issue of the choice and freedom of the individual.
The merits of the fluoride case are not the central point. We are dealing essentially with freedom of choice. We are dealing not with a relative but with an absolute monopoly. With energy supplies, people have a choice—they can use electricity, gas or coal. With water, there is no choice. With fluoride, people have a choice. They can take it other than through the water supply, if they wish or need to take it. But those who do not want fluoride will have no choice if the Government achieve their objective.
We have got ourselves into a series of unnecessary arguments over the need to find conterminous boundaries for the appropriate local authorities because we will not trust the individual to make up his own mind. That is the essence of the case. The Government have not dealt with it, and that is why they should be defeated on this issue.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am impelled to intervene by some of the Minister's remarks. He has the capacity to enrage hon. Members who have assembled to hear his case. For example, he described all the amendments in this group as wrecking amendments. That was an extraordinary charge for him to level at my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), who is in favour of adding fluoride to the public water supply.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has tabled what are deliberately wrecking amendments. I fear that with typical Liberal finesse, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) has tabled what are accidentally wrecking amendments.

Mr. Beith: If the Minister thinks that it would wreck his campaign to get fluoride into the public water supply were people given the opportunity to vote on it, then he has exposed how threadbare his case is. If he really believes that it would wreck his case to allow people the opportunity through their elected representatives on local authorities to take a democratic decision on the matter rather than have the decision taken for them by nominated bodies who are not answerable to them, he has shown how threadbare his argument is.
I stand by my defence of my hon. Friend. He and I from different sides of the argument agree on the principle that, if fluoride is to be put in the water supply, the decision to do this cannot be taken by nominated bodies. It must be taken by elected bodies.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the decision in Scotland which gave rise to all this was taken by an elected body? Strathclyde agreed, in a vote with a democratic majority to put fluoride in the water. Unlike his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is an opponent of fluoride. The idea that his sole concern is that a democratic body should take the decision is somewhat belied by the fact that the whole campaign and the attempt to change the previous practice began with an attempt to set aside a decision of an elected body in Scotland that took a democratic decision to put in fluoride.

Mr. Beith: The Minister anticipates all the points that I am going to make. I shall come to the relationship between England and Scotland, of which I am peculiarly aware, representing the constituency that I do.
My hon. Friend and I meet on common ground from different points. My hon. Friend comes from the point of believing that fluoride should be put in the water to believing that it should be put in, if it is to be put in, by a body which is democratically accountable. I move from the position of thinking that it were best if it were not done at all to one of thinking that, if it is going to be done, at least let us have it done by some body which is accountable to the public.
I remind the Minister that it is not my name that heads the amendment; the name that heads the amendment is that of my hon. Friend, who is verbally committed to the policy that he is advocating. In no sense is it a wrecking amendment. If the Minister believes that the amendment would be wrecking in effect, he has no confidence in his often repeated claim that the public is behind his proposal, and that it is something which consultation would demonstrate was widely supported. If consultation would demonstrate that, let the ballot demonstrate precisely that.
The Minister dwelt at some length on the differences and the mismatch of areas and the problem that, if local authorities were given the opportunity to make this decision, they are not identical in area to the water authorities, but that is precisely the situation now. The water and health authority areas are themselves not identical, for precisely the reasons that he advanced. They are configured for different reasons. The water authority areas were designed to fit river flows and so on. The two areas are not now the same.
Indeed, in my constituency there is one health authority but three water suppliers — the Northumbrian water authority, the Newcastle and Gateshead water company and the Coquet water board. Two out of those three authorities have fluoridated and unfluoridated areas, and only the Coquet water board is in a wholly unfluoridated area. There are three different authorities and different practices prevailing within the areas of two out of those three authorities. The mismatch therefore exists now. The supposedly overwhelming technical objection that the Minister produces is no less an objection to the situation that he is defending than to the situation that he is attacking, so he cannot rest his case on that argument.
When the Minister says that the arrangement that he is proposing must be some logically defensible one, how can he defend this situation to my constituent? Were he to go to the the village of Cornhill on Tweed in Northumberland, there he would find one or two doughty opponents of fluoridation. How can he explain to my constituents there the situation that, if flouride is put in their water supply, there is nobody whom they can call to account who is dependent upon their vote for his subsequent election? There is nobody to whom they can go and say, "I will not vote for you if you continue to support the policy of putting fluoride in the public water supply". This is the essential democratic test.

Mr. Richard Holt: In the context of the Northumbria water authority, would the hon. Gentleman care to reflect on whether the Gibraltarians, who are receiving their water from that authority at present, will have a vote on the matter?

Mr. Beith: The Northumbrian water authority is so keen on its contract with Gibraltar that, if the Gibraltarians say that they do not want any fluoride in the water, there will not be any fluoride in it. The hon. Gentleman points to the wide issue of the vast supplies of water and the huge capital debt in the water authority area we share, thanks to the profligacy of the water authority and its predecessor river authority in building the Kielder reservoir, but that is another story. We carry a heavy capital burden for that.
The case that I was arguing was that a man in my constituency in Cornwall on Tweed can merely look down the road to a point two miles away, to the village of Coldstream, the inhabitants of which can go to someone whom they have elected and say, "I shall not vote for you if you put fluoride in the public water supply." There is a difference of only two miles. On one side of the border people have the right to go to an elected body and demand the redress of grievances and on the other side there is no such right. The Minister drew attention to the existence of that right when he quoted the origins of the Strathclyde case. I take the view that I have always taken about that case, that I do not want fluoride in the water supply at all. However, the fact remains that the inhabitants of Scotland, under the proposals, are in a better position from a democratic point of view than those of England.
Therefore, the Minister, in his incredible determination to resist at all costs having any elected body involved in that process, is demonstrating a fundamental weakness in his position. It is Scargillism from the Conservative Front Bench. The Minister is saying, "No ballot at any price; for heaven's sake, don't let's have a vote on it." That is the fundamental weakness of the Bill, and the Minister should get off that position at the same time as he is telling the National Union of Mineworkers to get off.

Mr. Golding: I do not know whether you saw the Minister at the Dispatch Box, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it was a third, a third and a third performance. A third of the time he was speaking very loudly trying to sell himself the brief. A third of the time he spent giving way to his hon. Friends who do not want the Bill at any price. A third of the time we observed him struggling manfully to keep his trousers up. There were moments when I wished that the Parliamentary Private Secretary had accepted responsibility and gone and got for the Minister both belt and braces, because he needs them tonight.
The debate has been marked by one characteristic. From the Chair you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, see hon. Members weary, tired, fed up, and with their pay packets hanging out of their top pockets. That has been the background of the debate — the payroll vote. The Minister says, "I am also here as a Member of Parliament." On how many nights at 1.22 am in debates of this character — I appeal to an authority, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—as an ordinary Member of Parliament, has the Minister been seen expressing the point of view of his constituents?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I was here last week.

Mr. Golding: It is not when the right hon. and learned Gentleman is here being paid that I am asking about; it is not in his capacity as a Minister that I am talking about—I ask him on how many occasions over the past few years as a constituency Member of Parliament has he


abandoned his bed to put, on a matter of principle, the point of view of his constituents? It will not take him long to add it up.
The debate has been marked by the presence of the payroll vote. I have been part of the payroll vote, as you have, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend says that the debate has been marked by the attendance of the payroll vote. I have got news for him. The payroll vote is not all that anxious. Some members of the payroll vote are trying to wrestle with what is freedom of choice on fluoride, especially now that the lady has gone to Washington. The Whip in charge of this Bill is more than a little anxious. He came rushing up the corridor to me and said, "Are you with us?" I said, "When that happens we can all fold up. You can't get 100 to close the debate, can you?" So I do not know what my hon. Friend is going to do, whether he is going to speak for a long time. It may be necessary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, and indeed to the intervention, but we ought to get back to the new clause.

Mr. Golding: It is my misfortune, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that just as I am approaching the point, I am led away by interventions. That could be prevented if the Government Whip, with whom I have had experience in the past—he is what is called in the business accident prone — were to stop roaming the corridors, kerb crawling, molesting, soliciting. If the Government Whip were to take his position on the Treasury Bench, interventions could be avoided.
I was saying that we have had experience of the payroll vote. Tonight has been a case of the dog that did not bark in the night. I have had experience as a Whip. A Whip does two things: he keeps on ringing Ministers, keeping them from their beds, and he goes round finding people to speak for the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I can see no reference to Whips or, indeed, to the payroll vote in the clauses and amendments we are discussing.

Mr. Golding: I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that—

Mr. Lawrence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nobody has spoken for the Government so far except the Minister?

Mr. Golding: That is precisely the point that I was going to make. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is unusual in his profession: he forgets that he gets paid by the day. He hurries to the point too quickly. The point I am replying to in the debate—you are at a disadvantage, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in that you have not heard all the contributions tonight — is this. The case of the Minister was that the House supports this measure. Is it not permissible for me to say that the Government Whips have not been able to buy one Member hoping to get on to the payroll vote, which is the fodder of all Whips on such occasions? They have not been able to find one to get up and say, "I am a creep, I am a crawler, but I support the Government."

Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the difficulty of the Government is compounded by the fact

that, whereas on the principle of the Bill they commanded somewhat wider support then they now enjoy, when it came to this new clause and the related amandments, they found that the people who had hitherto supported them abandoned them and they had no friends at all, because they would not agree to any democratic element?

Mr. Golding: We cannot expect a democratic element from the Minister, with his payroll vote behind him. I am just hoping that the name of Golding having gone up on the screen has further discomfited the payroll vote.

Mr. Marlow: I have to admit that I have just been for an orange squash or something in the Smoking Room. I saw the hon. Gentleman's name come on the screen and that was the reason I came in here. There was a great groan from the payroll vote that was seated in the Smoking Room at the time.

Mr. Golding: I am sorry that that intervention was made, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Tonight I wish I could speak in such a way that my words were not recorded.
I know how important it is to get to the democratic principle. As I said earlier, the danger is that we are facing an alliance of the dogooders and the payroll vote. The do-gooders are trying to put pressure on us. I very much regret that, having voted against the Bill on Second Reading, I received a letter from a Socialist health authority that rebuked me for having voted against party policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover knows that I could not decide whether that was an argument for or against the way in which I voted. My only defence is that I followed my hon. Friend into the Lobby, so I knew that I was on the side of purity.

Mr. Skinner: At last Thursday's Parliamentary Labour party meeting, I raised the question of a free vote on party policy. Having received a similar letter, I was astute enough to do some checking. In 1978 there was an omnibus resolution on the Pavitt report, which was contrary to the advice that we had received. In 1982, when the Labour party drew up its programme, there was such a great deal of controversy about mass fluoridation that it decided not to include it in the programme. That was passed by conference, which means that party policy is that every Labour party member can choose for himself. That is why the Shadow Cabinet decided on a free vote. Therefore, my hon. Friend is free to carry on, at length.

Mr. Golding: My hon. Friend says that we are in the clear. The letter from the Socialist health authority was as nothing compared with the grilling from my wife who is a member of one of the health authorities. I hope that my speech tonight will not be recorded, because everybody who is associated with a health authority appears to be biased and prejudiced in favour of the Bill.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The conference motion that was passed in 1978 was moved by myself. It contained the recommendation that the Pavitt committee's proposals be carried out by a future Labour Government. Those recommendations included the fluoridation of water. That item, therefore, became party policy within a larger resolution, which included an omnibus matter on dental care as a whole.

Mr. Golding: In this dispute, the person for whom I feel sorry is my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock


and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). He would have joined in this debate on party policy if it were not for the fact that he put on his electric blanket at 9 o'clock this morning and was desperate to get home to bed. The difficulty for those who argue for democratic decisions is that it is the Government who are imposing this on us. If some of the amendments were accepted, we should not have Ministers sending us substantial packets of paper which say at the top, "Implementation of the Control of Pollution Act" setting out stringent regulations to control water authorities.
I declare an interest as a member the Anglers Co-operative Association, which is concerned with the fight against pollution. I listen to its meetings and to its reports on who is responsible for pollution. When I first joined its committee, I was surprised by the number of times that the water authority was the polluter. It has constantly been argued that it is wrong for a polluter to have responsibility for avoiding pollution. The new regulations apply equally to water authorities which, as they are constituted, should not be given such responsibilities. They have no expertise in health matters.
Some members of water authorities are appointed because of their expertise in fishing, and excellent people they are. Knowledge of the roach, the dace or the bream is no qualification to judge whether people should be given fluoride — or is it? Others are appointed to water authorities because they have an industrial interest in the use of water. One would expect brewers from Burton to be on the Severn-Trent water authority and I would hope that they would not want fluoride to be added to their beer. Water authority members are not appointed to consider health matters.
"The Municipal Year Book 1985" makes the point very well. Under the heading, "A survey of the year 1983–84 by the Water Authorities Association", it says:
With the boards appointed direct by Ministers, local authority representation reduced and on a new basis and board meetings no longer held in public, a new system of representing consumer interests was thought to be necessary.
Local control has been taken from the boards. They have become the supreme quangos. They are statutory bodies over which the Government have decided that they will have full control. In many cases, local authority representatives have been kicked off the boards.

Mr. Fairbairn: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of local brewers, he will have heard the Minister say that beer is made from fluoride-free springs; will he contradict that asinine assumption?

Mr. Golding: The hon. and learned Gentleman has already attacked the Government for being beastly and now he attacks them for being asinine. I am more courteous, and will merely say that they are out of touch.
It is not clear in the Bill to which water it applies. It does not refer only to water in reservoirs, water taken from rivers and rainwater treated in reservoirs, but talks of "water supplies." If a water authority has control over spring water, that is spring water. Ministers never seem to know what their Bills mean or contain. I came across that during the passage of the British Telecommunications Act, 1981. In his answer, the Minister seemed to think that the Bill covered only water dropped from heaven into a reservoir and piped through a domestic tap. Does the Bill

state that? Of course it does not. I am sure that the Minister has not a clue. Any minute now—he did it then—the Under-Secretary will look anxiously to the Dispatch Box. They do not know what the Bill contains.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing not the Bill in general, but amendments. I am listening carefully to his speech. Will he tell me to which amendment he is referring?

Mr. Golding: I refer to new clause 1.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been listening extremely carefully but have not been able during the past 10 minutes to discover whether the hon. Gentleman was talking about new clause 1.

Mr. Hardy: I think that my hon. Friend was referring to amendment No. 15, which is being taken with new clause 1. The words of the amendment are relevant to his point about the Minister controlling the authority. The Minister controls health authorities, as my hon. Friend knows. Amendment No. 15 inserts the words
after a vote taken at a meeting at which not less than 50 per cent. of the members of the authority entitled to vote are present.
As the Minister controls the membership of the authority, surely he can ensure a better attendance at its meetings than there is on the Government Benches this evening?

Mr. Golding: That has led me astray because I have not yet reached amendment No. 15. I am talking to new clause 1.
From time to time I should perhaps spell out my argument at greater length so that its logic can be followed. I am saying that we cannot trust the water authority to take these decisions. We must look at the Bill to see the logic of the argument. Section 1(1) gives the health authority the right to apply in writing to the statutory water authority for the water supplied within an area. The amendment says, "Hold on. The health authority and the water undertaker cannot do that on their own." Those who tabled the amendment are correct to restrict the power of the water and health authorities, because—here my hon. Friends are right—they are controlled by the Government.
1.45 am
As I was trying to show a moment ago, those authorities would then be subject to a Minister who does not know the Bill. How can we allow that? If the water and health authorities had to consult the county, borough or district councils, the Minister, the water and the health authorities would have to know what they were doing. They do not.
It is clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have been speaking about new clause 1. There are substantial arguments in support of the new clause and substantial objections to it. Have you examined the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to see the inconsistencies in it? The democratic principle was not the Minister's most powerful argument against the clause. His most powerful argument was his own cynicism—the cynicism of a Minister who says, "All consultation means is that you do not have to take any notice at the end." That is what he said. That destroys the assurance that he has given the House that he will introduce a measure to allow full public participation. That will be brought in on the same cynical basis.
Two letters will be delivered to the health authority. One will say, "You must go for public participation." That is the one that it will open at 9 o'clock. At 10 o'clock a separate letter will be delivered by hand to the chairman's


office. That letter will say, "Oh, PS, when you go for public participation, do not take any notice of it." That is how the Government operate.
The second letter will be reinforced by another payroll vote principle. If the chairmen take notice, they will be reappointed; if they take no notice they will not be reappointed. It is the nod and the wink, the stick and the carrot, with more stick than carrot. That is the principle that the Government operate.

Mr. Beith: The carrot is pretty big as well.

Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman says that the carrot is pretty big as well. I still think that the stick is bigger than the carrot. By his cynicism the Minister helps to destroy new clause 1. I do not know why the Government have not said to the hon. Member for Ynys MÔn (Mr. Best), "Look, we will take advantage of your inexperience. We shall accept your new clause." In another place the Government will suddenly find that it is defective. The Minister's cynicism almost reached the Mace but he decided to leave the new clause on one side, as it were.
Of course, the new clause is nonsense. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and I were on the Treasury Bench, we could be more brutal than the Minister. I am sure that we would have treated the new clause with greater brutality. It provides that
the county council, borough or district council
shall be consulted by the health authority.
Fancy providing a choice in that way! What will happen? Telephone calls will be made—for example, "Chairman, what is the vote on your council?"; "Chairman, do you think that you can do any better than this?"; "Chairman, if you get a majority, and the other two councils have let me down, we shall put you in the honours list." I can imagine it happening. Yet the hon. Member for Ynys Môn submits the new clause for our consideration. Perhaps he wants the chairman of his district council to get in the honours list. Fancy providing such a choice; it does not make sense. It is necessary to choose one council or the other. The new clause refers to district councils, community or parish councils and to community health councils.

Mr. Best: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to abuse me any more. If he takes care to read the new clause he will find that the requirement is consultation with the county council and then either the borough or district council. The last two are alternatives. The new clause goes on to specify the community or parish council, as those are alternatives as well, there being community councils in Wales and parish councils in England. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not abuse me any further. The new clause was carefully drawn and it could easily be accepted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health. It would make a perfectly good addition to the statute book.

Mr. Golding: I have never been a parliamentary draftsman, but I have been a victim of the draftsmen, as has the hon. Gentleman. However, I must tell him that a comma should not be placed after "county council". The new clause should spell out its intention in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has done. If he thinks that his intervention will stop me abusing him, he must be appealing for my sympathy. The new clause is nonsense because of defective drafting. If it is not defective drafting,

we are faced with blind stupidity. The new clause cannot be read in the way that the hon. Gentleman would have us read it.

Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman a lawyer?

Mr. Golding: My hon. Friend wishes to know whether the hon. Member for Ynys MÔn is a lawyer.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is a lawyer.

Mr. Golding: I am advised by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who sits on the non-Treasury Front Bench below the Gangway, that the hon. Member for Ynys MÔn is a lawyer. That proves my point. I once wrote to the Library asking for a brief on the defects of lawyers and the Library replied by parcel post. I am amazed by the new clause. I thought that things were going wrong in the Conservative party, but not this wrong.
The new clause is defective on two counts. First, the clause would be destroyed by the cynicism of the Minister. Secondly, it is unworkable.

Mr. Marlow: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to the next new clause, he might well find that new clause 1 is defective but that there is a principle behind it. If the House voted in favour of new clause 1, does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be possible for the Government in another place so to amend it that it would satisfy his requirements?

Mr. Skinner: That is debatable.

Mr. Golding: I do not like the principle. It is the soft option, or the cop-out. We are talking about the soft option— the cop-out for the Government. Anyone can beat the Government uphill and down dale and show that they are wrong, but they say, "We've thought about that. We'll consult." We have heard tonight what the Minister means by consultation. He says, "Wheel them in, give them a cup of coffee, listen to them, say nice words, then wheel them out." He then tells the civil servants, "Don't write to them for a fortnight. Let them think we're making up our minds." 
The Minister says, "We can't have this because it is defective." We are talking about a statutory right of consultation. I thought that Government Members were gullible, but surely they are not as gullible as that. The Government are offering something more perfect than that which is proposed. The Minister has already conceded the principle. He has offered something better than that which is in the new clause.

Dr. Marek: For four hours, no members of the SDP have been in the Chamber. Perhaps the Government are even now ringing them, asking them for their support. If that is so, what would they think about new clause 1?

Mr. Golding: I regard with respect those who avoid my speeches. I cannot, in all honesty, say that it is a criticism of SDP members that they are not here at this time of night. None of us should be here at this time of night. 
On this issue the Government could not be defeated, except at this time of night. It is a strategem. You, Mr. Speaker, would tell me off if I described the tactics that you would have used as a Whip, seeking to get Government business through. None of us should be here at this time of night. We are here only because the Government are determined to bulldoze the business through with the payroll vote.
I do not wish to be led astray. But I wish to discuss amendment No. 15, which I reject. The amendment is naive, and I do not know why the hon. and learned Member for Burton tabled it. I should have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) was too experienced to put his name to that amendment. This measure makes respectable a vote on the issue of fluoridation. It is as though someone had said that if Crippen had been democratically elected and had convened a meeting of himself and his mistress at which one person voted for poisoning, he could not be taken to court. That is the principle [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but this matter is laughable.
2 am
I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover because he understands the way of the world. Conservative Members do not. I do not know whether life in the courts is rough or sheltered, but fancy saying to an authority, "You shall have the authority to poison so long as buses are sent around the towns and villages to bundle 50 per cent of authority members on them."

Mr. Beith: Chauffeur-driven cars.

Mr. Golding: : My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and I would go by bus.
The meeting is held and a vote is taken. The authority would say, "We have had the 50 per cent. attendance as required by Parliament. We have satisfied the condition. We have satisfied the opposition to the Bill." How daft.

Mr. Lawrence: All right. I shall withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Golding: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman does so. The meeting's chairman would only have to send out two notices, one saying, "Meeting at two o'clock on fluoridation," and the other, a nice white card with gold edging, saying, "Sherry party at 2.30 pm." The chairman would ring around saying, "We have a notable personality and sherry and beer will be available."

Mr. Skinner: If there was claret, the SDP would turn up.

Mr. Golding: There would be claret for the SDP and a notable personality, resulting in 50 per cent. attendance at the meeting.
I hope that the innocent, gullible and unworldly hon. and learned Member for Burton will withdraw the amendment. I once appeared in the stocks with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I would have refused if I had known that I would be appearing with such an innocent. The hon. and learned Gentleman must withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Skinner: There is another aspect to this 50 per cent. I agree with my hon. Friend about the way in which one could arrange to get that 50 per cent. attendance. It is clear that the Government have not been using that invitation card system tonight to get 50 per cent. of their Back Benchers here to vote for the measure. Will my hon. Friend consider whether it is more democratic to get 50 per cent. of authority members to the meeting as opposed to getting fewer than 50 per cent. of Conservative Members here to pass the measure?

Mr. Golding: That is not the point. The point is that the Minister and the chairman of the authority would use the same sort of language. Tonight, the payroll vote will be whipped in and out. I think of the scene in the courtyard, with all those Rovers bumping into each other, five minutes after the Vote. Five minutes later, the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and say that this is the will of Parliament. That will be after a whipped payroll vote, with nobody wanting to vote and everybody hating it, but voting because a Department has decided to go one way, and the Whips are supporting it, and the directive has gone out. That is what the Minister will describe as the will of Parliament, as will the water boards and the health authorities. They will get 51 per cent. Of members—26 per cent. will vote yes, 24 per cent. will vote no, and they will say that it was the will of Parliament.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right because the Minister used that argument when he talked about the democratic powers of water authorities. He said that Parliament in its wisdom had taken those powers away. It is clear that Ministers would do this again, given the chance, as my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Golding: I agree with my hon. Friend. In the interests of time, however, I shall not develop his point unduly.
Amendment No. 14 has been tabled by the same hon. Members who tabled amendment No. 13. It says:
'There shall be no increase in the fluoride content of the water supplied by a water undertaker unless approval is given for such action by the vote of a majority in favour of it in each county council in the area to be affected'.
There is a problem here. The hon. and learned Member for Burton should listen at this point. He was kind enough to give me a list of all the different—

Mr. John Cope: (Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 43.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 95.

Division No. 114]
[2.09 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Ancram, Michael
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Farr, Sir John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gow, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hayhoe, Barney


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Henderson, Barry


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Burt, Alistair
Howard, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howells, Geraint


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Colvin, Michael
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Coombs, Simon
Jessel, Toby


Cope, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Couchman, James
Lamont, Norman


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lang, Ian


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dobson, Frank
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dorrell, Stephen
Lilley, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Dunn, Robert
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Durant, Tony
Lord, Michael






Lyell, Nicholas
Robinson Mark (N'port W)


Macfarlane, Neil
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


MacGregor, John
Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Major, John
Snape, Peter


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mather, Carol
Squire, Robin


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanley, John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Meacher, Michael
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Moore, John
Tracey, Richard


Moynihan, Hon C.
Waddington, David


Needham, Richard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Newton, Tony
Watts, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Whitney, Raymond


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wiggin, Jerry


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wood, Timothy


Patten, John (Oxford)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pawsey, James
Younger, Rt Hon George


Pollock, Alexander



Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Renton, Tim
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)





NOES


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Best, Keith
Lawrence, Ivan


Bruce, Malcolm
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Budgen, Nick
McGuire, Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cash, William
McKelvey, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Marek, Dr John


Conway, Derek
Marlow, Antony


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Maynard, Miss Joan


Flannery, Martin
Monro, Sir Hector


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Norris, Steven


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Parry, Robert


Galley, Roy
Pike, Peter


Grist, Ian
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Ground, Patrick
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Wigley, Dafydd


Hardy, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Winterton, Nicholas


Haynes, Frank



Hayward, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Holt, Richard
Mr. John Golding and


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Division No. 115]
[2.20 am


AYES


Best, Keith
Grist, Ian


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Ground, Patrick


Bruce, Malcolm
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hardy, Peter


Cash, William
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Haynes, Frank


Conway, Derek
Hayward, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Dobson, Frank
Holt, Richard


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Farr, Sir John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Flannery, Martin
Howells, Geraint


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Galley, Roy
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Golding, John
Lawrence, Ivan





Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


McGuire, Michael
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wigley, Dafydd


McKelvey, William
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Marek, Dr John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Marlow, Antony
Winterton, Nicholas


Maynard, Miss Joan



Meacher, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michie, William
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Monro, Sir Hector
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.


Pike, Peter





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Major, John


Ancram, Michael
Marland, Paul


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Mather, Carol


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Batiste, Spencer
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Moore, John


Bottomley, Peter
Moynihan, Hon C.


Bright, Graham
Needham, Richard


Brooke, Hon Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Neubert, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Newton, Tony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Nicholls, Patrick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Colvin, Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)


Coombs, Simon
Pawsey, James


Cope, John
Pollock, Alexander


Couchman, James
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Renton, Tim


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Dorrell, Stephen
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Dunn, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Durant, Tony
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Eggar, Tim
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Snape, Peter


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gow, Ian
Squire, Robin


Gregory, Conal
Stanley, John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Hayhoe, Barney
Stradling Thomas, J.


Henderson, Barry
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Howard, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Waddington, David


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Jessel, Toby
Watts, John


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Whitney, Raymond


Lamont, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Lee, John (Pendle)
Wood, Timothy


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lilley, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Lord, Michael



Lyell, Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Macfarlane, Neil
Mr. Ian Lang and


MacGregor, John
Mr.Peter Lloyd.


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned. — [Mr. Cope.]

Dr. Marek: I am somewhat surprised that at this stage the Government should propose the adjournment of further consideration of the Bill. I was waiting patiently in the long line of speakers on the previous new clause, and I


expected that I would be able to have my say, for what it is worth, and impart my opinion to the House. However, that was not to be because, by the smallest of majorities, the Government managed to carry the Closure. However, we have now disposed of new clause 1, and it would be out of order to refer to it.
Important new clauses are now before us. There are new clauses 6 and 11. New clause 6 refers to
monitoring of the levels of fluoride within all parts of the United Kingdom.
I am worried about whether that monitoring is goind on now. If it is not, how can we be sure that an adequate and accurate record of the effects of fluoridation will be kept? Only if we have such a record can we be absolutely sure in 10, 20, 30 or 50 years that we are doing the right thing by placing fluoride in our water supply. That is a very important clause. I should like to oppose the motion that further consideration be adjourned. I hope that we shall continue with our debate.
It was wrong of the Government to seek to put the debate on after 10 o'clock. It is a debate of crucial importance. I am in basic sympathy with the Bill. I was not allowed to speak, because of the Government. I have one or two caveats about the Bill, but I am in basic sympathy with it. New clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Ynys MÔn (Mr. Best), is very important. We should get on to it as quickly as possible.
That is not the only matter that we should consider. For example, there is new clause 11, which states:
The Secretary of State shall establish machinery for monitoring the effects of the operation of this Act with particular reference to—

(a) benefit for teeth;
(b) harm to health;
(c) harm to plant and acquatic life".

It is the same with new clause 6. New clause 11 is about obtaining information. Is that information being obtained now? If it is not, we should obtain it as quickly as possible. For that reason, it is important that we debate new clause 11 as soon as possible.
There are also amendments Nos. 6 and 17, which have been selected, as well as amendment No. 4, which I am not too worried about. However, it needs to be debated fairly because it is crucial to the Bill. I would support the principle of it. It is that fluoridation should go ahead only if the fluoridating authority can guarantee that the quantities that will be put into the water will be one part per million or close to that.
Finally, we have amendments Nos. 11 and 10, which are very important to the Bill. We have to know exactly what compounds can be put into the list and what compounds cannot be put in. It is not altogether clear to me, and I should certainly like to know precisely what the Government think about this. We have two compounds here — hexafluorosilicic acid and disodium hexafluorosilicate. I should like to know whether the Government would be able to put any other compounds into this list and whether any others are suitable.
I know that water is fluoridated in certain areas of the United Kingdom now and it would certainly be my intention to question the Government fairly closely on exactly what compounds are put into the water. For that reason, I hope that the motion will be defeated and that we shall be able to continue the debate on this very important matter, if only because we have half the Cabinet, almost

all the payroll vote and all the talent, such as it is, present on the Government Benches. We do not have that very often. Those Benches are usually empty, except for one or two people on the Treasury Bench and a Whip at the far end. We do not usually have the benefit of the Government's concentration and obvious expertise, but we have it tonight, and I suggest that we try to use it. I should certainly be very interested to hear what some of the Government Members have to say.

Mr. Marlow: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and as the whole House knows, the Treasury Bench has many qualities. One of its supreme qualities is that of listening very carefully to the debate. The Government put measures together and put proposals before the House, then there is a debate and the Government— particularly this Government— listen very carefully to what is said.
This evening we have heard a series of brilliant speeches. The last, which was interrupted by the closure — was a brilliant speech by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). It was persuasive, cogent and well argued.
The motion before the House is that further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned. Perhaps the Minister will open his heart to us and tell us what his intentions are. It may well be that it is his intention to withdraw the Bill altogether, and it would help the House if he were to tell us that before we consider the motion.

Mr. Hardy: I rise to oppose the motion. Hon. Members who were in the Chamber when I took part in the debate on new clause 1 will remember that I had the misfortune to speak after the Minister. The Minister, perhaps understandably in view of the late hour, was very impatient. He rose when quite a few hon. Members were still hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As the Minister will recall, I put a number of questions to him, and I was hoping that during the course of the debate— and it will be very relevant during the debate on new clause 6— I could remind the Minister of the matters which I had raised I asked him, for example, about the implications of the experience in my constituency when a herd of Shorthorn cattle died of fluorosis as a result of the ground being contaminated by fluoride salts. He had talked about medical advice but had not mentioned veterinary advice. I was hoping that in the meantime he would have secured the veterinary advice which would be necessary in order to respond to the points that I had put to him. The Minister might wish to assure me that he will provide me with the relevant information. Unfortunately, he was so impatient to speak in the debate that he could not wait for some of us who had quite serious observations to make.
The second point that I made, to which I was also hoping to be favoured with a reply from the Minister, concerned those of my constituents—and the Secretary of State for the Environment should definitely listen to this —who, like quite a number of constituents in the areas represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite, do not at present enjoy an adequate domestic water supply.
I have real reservations about whether we should be spending money on or giving priority to adding things to water when some of our constituents do not have an adequate flow of water from their domestic taps—and,


in many cases, perhaps because of the cuts in the Government's housing investment, do not have an adequate water supply in their homes at all. It is absurd that we are talking about adding chemicals to water when some people in our country do not have an adequate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into the merits and demerits of the Bill but should confine himself to the question whether further consideration of the Bill should be adjourned.

Mr. Hardy: I am suggesting that we should not adjourn when I have constituents who do not have an adequate water supply. However, I shall not trespass on that point further.
I would have liked the Minister to have replied to another point. It could have been covered in the debate on new clause 6. While we are concerned about the monitoring of fluoride, if the Government accepted that new clause we should be monitoring the progress that should be made in Britain to promote decent, clean and healthy streams and rivers.
I marvel that the Government are prepared to devote resources to adding chemicals to our water supply when half the water courses in the industrial areas of England are nothing but open sores. It is right that the Government's priorities should be challenged. It is sad that the Minister has not responded to the very serious points made in the debate following his speech. The result is that we shall reach a temporary stop in the progress of the Bill without having had adequate replies to some of the points raised.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the tactics that the Government have needed to use to get through the Bill on a supposedly free vote are quite shabby? Will he address himself to the thought that the payroll vote happens to be here, not having heard the debate. Not one Conservative Member has spoken for the Bill, other than the Minister. I suggest that the pay roll voters ponder on that and ask themselves whether it would not be a favour to the British people if they went home and left this matter to a true free vote. Alternatively—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be making an intervention. He must not make a long speech.

Mr. Hawkins: If the payroll voters do not want a free vote, perhaps just one of them will speak for the Bill.

Mr. Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you ask hon. Members to be brief in their contributions?

Mr. Hardy: It behoves all of us, on both sides of the House, to follow my hon. Friend's advice on every possible occasion, which is why I shall not continue for much longer.
I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins). I hope that I shall always have the courtesy to do so, especially when he makes such valid and pertinent observations. It is sad that what is supposed to be a free vote clearly is not one. I am glad that Conservative Members point to the sheer mockery of the House pretending that it is having a free vote when a substantial proportion of hon. Members would not dream of being here in any circumstances unless there was a very real element of compulsion.

Dr. Marek: Whether we should adjourn is an important point. We should not be here at this time of the morning. The Government should put on this business immediately after Question Time as it is an important matter that deserves the attention of hon. Members. It is wrong that we should be here at quarter to three in the morning.

Mr. Hardy: I could not agree more. We all have constituents who are seriously interested in this matter. The newspapers will not be reporting our debate at 2.45 am. As they have more sense than to do that, and as our constituents believe that the matter is important, it is reasonable for us to suggest that we continue the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) should not resist temptation, but hold forth at great length until the journalists have got out of their beds and can report the debate to our constituents.

Mr. McGuire: My hon. Friend is right that this debate should be broadcast to the nation through the newspapers. Although Monday's debate, which was broadcast on "Radio 4", was important, does my hon. Friend agree that, in terms of personal freedom, this debate is of far greater importance?

Mr. Hardy: We should debate this matter long enough to examine the payroll vote so that, when the Prime Minister returns from Washington, she can discover which members of the Government are loyal, devoted and here and which have taken the opportunity of her absence to depart at a reasonable hour.

Dr. Marek: Would my hon. Friend address himself to whether the right hon. Lady has been telephoned and whether the Government have therefore received instructions?

Mr. Hardy: I am not sure whether the Prime Minister is on holiday or a state visit. If she is on a state visit, I assume that she will have been telephoned by now but that, if she is on holiday, she might not find out until she returns. I hope that, when she returns, the right hon. Lady will not be as cross as legend sometimes suggests she is. If the Prime Minister were here, she would want Ministers to reply to the serious issues that have been raised. The frivolous attitude that has developed on the Treasury Bench suggests that the House should take this matter rather more seriously than to allow Ministers to escape far too early.
If we have a Division, the Government are bound to win, but I trust that, when we next consider the Bill, the Government will enable us to do so at a reasonable hour. If the Government Whips assure us that the Bill will be discussed after Question Time, we should discuss it no more, let the Government have their way and, perhaps, go home rejoicing. Unless we are assured that we will not discuss the Bill at 3 am another morning, the Government must accept that we will be compelled to press this matter for rather a long time.

Mr. Fairbairn: It is important that, when we are discussing a Bill of such major principle, no concept of flippancy, filibustering, twisting the rules of the House or the arms of Ministers should interfere with the seriousness of the principle that we are discussing.
I hope that the Government, who are here as a press gang, roped one to another—such as are here, 105 of them; well, perhaps not 105 of them: there are a few renegade cannibals in the rope—

Mr. Toby Jessel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to describe other hon. Members as cannibals?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was not aware that the hon. and learned Gentleman was referring to particular hon. Members. It was a general observation.

Mr. Jessel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It must follow logically that my hon. and learned Friend was referring to particular hon. Members, since otherwise no meaning could be attached to what he said.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can my hon. and learned Friend tell us from which country the cannibals come?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an extremely important matter and we should get on with the debate about whether further consideration of the Bill should be adjourned.

Mr. Fairbairn: I happily reject the morsels offered. This is a debate about the most serious principle, that is, whether aqua vitae, whisky, the water of life—

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that we are debating whether to adjourn, not the principle. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not stray from that point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening carefully. We are debating not the principle of the Bill, but whether further consideration should be adjourned.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that you are more entitled to hold the Chair than my hon. Friend.
When we debate a matter of considerable principle, in which hon. Members on all sides of the House have expressed their views on what is called a free vote, it is disturbing that the free vote is not a free vote, that the free minds of the free hon. Members of this free House are not allowed to be exercised according to their consciences, and that those of us with a free conscience are bludgeoned by those who are not allowed to have one. Perhaps we should not continue this important debate tonight. I trust that it is not lost on a Government, who were happily elected on the concept of freedom, that where freedom of conscience on such an important matter is so conscientiously challenged by Back-Bench Members of all parties, that that freedom in a democratic House of Commons should be steamrollered and made to look absurd. I trust, therefore, that the Government will announce that the issue will continue to be debated and voted on freely by free people in a free Government.

Mr. McGuire: I wish to speak briefly about why we should not adjourn, as I do not intend to abuse the House. I hope that I can persuade the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) that we should not adjourn. The Government chose the day and time because they thought that they could pass the measure comfortably.

They did not think that a sufficient number of free men and women would stay behind. Tonight it has become clear that the payroll vote are trying to get into the Whips' good books, as are Parliamentary Private Secretaries who hope to become Ministers.
The business will not be carried tonight. The two votes of 105 and 95 in favour show that some of the payroll vote are heading for the hills. The deputy Chief Whip could not rise with certainty to move the next clause because it would be defeated. I say to those free men who have stayed behind, "Keep here." I hope that enough of them get up—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. McGuire: I want to finish the sentence. When the hon. Member intervened earlier, he was told that he had taken too long. I hope that he speaks and inspires all his comrades to say why we should not go home and give the Government a convenient victory. They cannot carry this measure tonight. They will probably make an anodyne announcement at a later stage about the vote being free. The vote has never been free. It has always been carried by the payroll vote, even on Second Reading.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. McGuire: I shall give way in a moment.
If we examine the vote we will find that it has always been carried by the payroll vote. It is an abuse to call the vote free. I had better give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he has been bobbing up and down.

Mr. Marlow: I do not want to keep the hon. Gentleman going; I want to put the record straight. The Government did not have sufficient Members, even with the payroll vote, to get the closure. Opposition Members voted with the Government. Let us get the record straight.

Mr. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated me. He is slightly awry with his figures. The Opposition have chastised — those who were within hearing will agree with the technical meaning of the word, and I was part of it —those of my hon. Friends who agreed in principle to make an artificially fluoridated water supply available to more than the 5 million people who have it. I said, "I disagree with you, but you are not asked to vote on that when you vote for the closure. You can reserve that for when we debate the amendments." I told them that they should not have gone into the Lobby and made the Government's vote 105. The Government would have carried it with a bare majority, because I believe that only five of my right hon. and hon. Friends were so wooden-headed as to go into the Lobby to help the Government get their business when their own Members could not get it.

Mr. Peter Snape: rose—

Mr. McGuire: I shall give way in a moment. My hon. Friend must just bide his time. There were 100 votes, including the payroll—the odds and sods, the PPSs and so on.

Mr. Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it permissible to describe PPSs as "odds"?

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it permissible for the hon. Gentleman to refer to his Front Bench as odds and sods?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would help the House if we returned to the real debate.

Mr. McGuire: I am addressing myself—

Mr. Fairbairn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A PPS is not a sod but an aid.

Mr. McGuire: I am talking about why we should not give the Government an easy ride tonight. I chastised my hon. Friends and told them that they should not have thought of helping the Government, because if the vote had gone to 101 or 102 they would have been in trouble. The Government can only get their measure if we allow them to adjourn. I ask Conservative Members—some have spoken and some have intervened—to follow me and say why we should not adjourn. It is an abuse to call the vote free. It manifestly is not.

Mr. Snape: I am not sure whether I am an odd, a sod, or a woodentop, having heard what my hon. Friend has said. Will he give some evidence to show that I should not have voted for fluoride, because I believe that he thinks that there is something inherently dangerous about the substance? I should be grateful if he could prove that.

Mr. McGuire: I should be out of order if I did that. If my hon. Friend had listened, and if he reads the debates, why I disagree would be apparent. My hon. Friend need not have forgone his principle of being in favour of fluoride. The reason for my chastisement of him and my other hon. Friends who went through the Lobby is that it is not the function of Labour Members of Parliament to assist Tory Governments to get their business on the closure vote. That is what I said. That is the answer to one of my hon. Friend's questions. The answer to his second question is that if we reach Third Reading we shall discuss the contents of the Bill, amended as it is. I hope then to illuminate for my hon. Friend why I am opposed to fluoridation.

Mr. Snape: I thought that my hon. Friend might be opposed to it.

Mr. McGuire: My hon. Friend is trying to be too clever by half. He should attend our debates for longer periods and inform his mind. If he did so, he would be able more properly to make his cracks.

3 am

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I can think of a much better place to be at this hour of the night than in this place, and my wife can similarly think the same. I believe that it is wholly inappropriate for Ministers, who have to run great Departments of State, to be kept up at this hour of the night on a measure such as the Bill. However, the Bill was not mentioned in the Conservative party's manifesto and nor was it mentioned in the Queen's Speech. I have never been a member of the Conservative party compulsorily to medicate the water supply—

Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to the way in which the debate is going. It would seem that we are not debating the motion to report progress.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth).

Mr. Howarth: I am addressing myself to the motion that further consideration of the Bill be adjourned and explaining why I believe that we should not adjourn the debate for the moment. I believe that I have advanced good

reasons so far. The Bill was not mentioned in the Conservative party's manifesto and we should not be party to such a measure. However, if those on the Government Front Bench can assure us that we shall debate the Bill at a civilised hour and not in the hole-in-the-corner way in which it has been brought before us tonight, I shall be happy to support the motion that the debate should be adjourned.

Mr. Golding: I must confess that I entered the Chamber at 20 past ten o'clock looking for a lift home. I think that my last bus has run by now.
I do not criticise my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for voting to curtail one of my speeches. He will have the support of many hon. Members who have more sense than us and who are now in their beds. I was a party on the Opposition Front Bench who made certain that the Conservative Government of the day secured the Tote Bill. It is valid on a free vote for Front Bench Opposition Members to vote with the Government to secure legislation. That is acceptable when it is a free vote, at least for the Opposition. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) should attack this poor, miserable sinner, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, for voting as he did.

Mr. McGuire: As my hon. Friend has missed his last bus, is he in favour of the debate being curtailed on an issue which, as he said earlier, is of prime importance? I want him to reconcile his support for my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and his wish that the debate shall not be curtailed.

Mr. Golding: There are reasons for the curtailment of the debate. I think that I am the only Member to have spoken for the Government so far. Indeed, that has been a feature of the debate. No one, except me, has spoken for the Government. I suppose that that is one of the advantages of having a substantial voting majority. However, the Government do not need the payroll vote on the motion to adjourn the debate because many of their supporters will vote with them, and for very good reasons.
After I wandered into the Chamber and discovered the subject for debate tonight I decided to brief myself with the 1985 "Municipal Year Book". I have read the book, but I have yet to read the preface by the Secretary of State for the Environment. Our debates will be better reported when I have done so.
I put a point to the hon. Member who has spoken for whisky so often tonight—I say "for" whisky, not "with" whisky." He said that many amendments are not efficient. That might be so, but if we adjourn now we shall be able to table more amendments. Of course we can speak until Christmas and until the buses run again, but we should do a service to all if we had a wider range of amendments which appealed to different sections of the community.
The Minister has had a bad night. There has been bear-baiting. My hon. Friends have said that they do not want to go home, for various reasons. The bear has been savaged and the crowd has not wanted the dogs to be pulled back. The Minister is at bay. When the Minister says "Enough, enough, take the dogs away, shoot the fox", hon. Members say, "Let us continue to enjoy the blood."
My hon. Friends should allow the Minister to go away, because he has given them an assurance tonight. He has said that he will introduce a statutory right.
The Minister thought that after One o'clock we should be long gone. If we draw stumps we can ask the Minister to go back to his Department, draft his amendment, put it on the Order Paper and bring it back for us to look at.
That should satisfy the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) who takes this business more seriously than some. He wants the Minister's promised amendment. So do I.
I say to my hon. Friends "Enough is enough." Government Members will be in enough trouble when the Prime Minister comes back. This is no laughing matter. I shall be in trouble with my wife after tonight. Government Members are in trouble. We must not kick them when they are down, particularly since we shall have another chance of kicking them down when they are up.
The Government are in ribbons—in chaos. They are being battered from all sides. Why do we want to get this debate over and done with quickly? Let us draw it out. I have been charitable to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East but I think that he would do best to slump in his seat because some of my hon. Friends are very upset with him. If he and the Labour Front Bench had not voted with the Government, I would still be speaking. I would not be speaking in support of the Government, as I am doing now. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is grimacing and glowering at me.

Mr. Skinner: It is not that at all. My hon. Friend is making a fairly good point. I would not try to save the Government after their spectacular defeat tonight. I am concerned not just because I have a cold which might have disappeard by the time this legislation is brought back. We might be able to do a bit more propping and cropping in the debate. I am concerned because my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) wishes to raise in the Adjournment debate the important subject of the need for battery-powered wheelchairs for the disabled. Now that we have got the Government on the run, and not because we want to be merciful, I want to give my hon. Friend the opportunity as soon as possible to get stuck into the Government to provide battery-powered wheelchairs. That is why I have been inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), not, as he said, to grimace.

Mr. Golding: It just shows that I cannot tell when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is agreeing or grimacing. My hon. Friend has persuaded me that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has such an important subject to raise that there can be no excuse for delaying the proceedings any longer. I say to the Government: "We have made a real bash of it tonight. Go away. Try to do better. There is no chance that you will be able to do so, because you are in a hopeless position. We shall let you off the hook because our mate has the Adjournment and wishes to raise a most important subject."

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I do not wish to delay the Adjournment debate; I wish only to make a brief point, because I am worried about the reasons why the Government have moved this motion. I appreciate that there is a free vote on this matter, and I am sure that the few observers present find that puzzling. On this rare occasion, there are conflicts on the Labour and Conservative Benches, alliances across the Floor and hon. Members using their minds and addressing themselves to the argument. This is a stimulating experience, and I wish that it would happen more often.

Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman referred to conflict on the Labour and Conservative Benches. It is clear that there is no conflict on the SDP Bench, because there has not been an SDP Member here during the past five hours. I wonder whether SDP Members are drafting amendments for when the debate, resumes.

Mr. Bruce: That could well be. They might be well occupied in doing that at this late hour.
A lady in my constituency frequently telephones me. That could be a nice experience, except that the lady is the secretary of the local Conservative association. She telephones me saying, "I know that I do not vote for you and do not campaign for you. But I hope that you will do everything you can to oppose the fluoridation of water." I have to represent that good lady tonight because the Government say that they want to adjourn this debate rather than accept that there is a need to discuss the matter further.
People feel strongly about this issue. It is perhaps unfortunate that many other issues are regarded as political when they should be free, so that people can freely campaign, as no doubt they will at the next general election, for the election of a Government that are going to force through fluoridation and yet can say that they are opposed to this move.
The Government should recognise that feelings are very strong on this issue. We should not force the issue through. People should take fluoride of their own free will, and not because the Government say so. That is my point, and the reason why I believe that the debate should be brought back to the House at a time when all hon. Members can participate at a civilised hour, and sensible amendments can be tabled.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered this day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Question proposed,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of a Bill brought in on a Ways and Means Resolution, more than one stage of the London Regional Transport (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with at any sitting of the House.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Objection taken.

Orders of the Day — Wheelchairs

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. Martin Flannery: That such a titanic debate should have ended so that I could have my Adjournment debate gratifies me immensely.
The plight of many disabled people, whether they be in Sheffield, south Yorkshire or any other part of the country, is literally heart-breaking. The struggle to live with dignity is hard enough for ordinary working people but if one is crippled and handicapped, life can be a living hell, and there are many such. Those who are confined to wheelchairs are disadvantaged and dispossessed in a way that would horrify us if ever we had to face such a misfortune, and there are many thousands of such people, many more than most people are aware.
We are a little inclined to take such people for granted, although I think that we do not know that we are taking them for granted when we do so. We look on sympathetically, we are glad that we are not like that, and we pass on. Generally, most of us do very little about it, but there is much that we can do, and we have a National Health Service that can and must be put to great use in the service of such people.
Like everyone else, I have watched good people pushing other folk around in wheelchairs, and I have watched people struggling who, through age or ill health, should never have to perform that task for their loved ones. How many times have we all felt a pang of compassion at the sight of an elderly man or woman trying to push another elderly person in a wheelchair when they are obviously unfit to be doing that? We have the sick pushing the crippled, and often the elderly sick pushing the elderly crippled.
Surely, it is obvious, in this day and age, when technology can put men on the moon, and plan weapons of unimaginable horror, that we should use the money and the technical skill to ensure dignity and mobility to disabled people. Many of the people who are confined to a wheelchair are virtually prisoners in their homes. I can give an example of this.
In Sheffield, there is a woman called Ivy Peters, who is 82 and is crippled. She spends all her days sitting in a high chair, making soft toys and other handicrafts to help patients in the city hospital, despite her own ailments. She has been completely crippled since 1979, and since her husband died four years ago, there has been no one to push her manually-operated wheelchair. The only respite to her daily routine is a daily visit from a district nurse, and a weekly trip to a nearby day centre for the elderly. She says:
I can't stand up because of the pain. I can't get my manual wheelchair out of the hall because I can't manoeuvre it through the door, so all I do is just sit in this chair. To me, it is living hell.
If it were only Ivy it would, in all conscience, be bad enough, but she is only one among many thousands. Surely our priorities are wrong. By rearranging our priorities it is possible to provide, under National Health Service prescription, a battery powered wheelchair to all those who need them, provided that we use money for that purpose. These poor people, already deprived and disadvantaged by being crippled, are a thousand times more deprived by the national restriction upon powered

wheelchairs which in many cases compels them to spend their lives imprisoned in their own homes. As Mrs. Kath Savage in my Sheffield constituency, who is leading the campaign, says:
I don't think the people who make the rules appreciate how degrading, frustrating and depressing it is to have to rely on someone else to take them everywhere.
This lady, Kath Savage, ought to know, for she is both disabled and determined: disabled, at 48 years old, for some years by rheumatoid arthritis and determined to end this misery for all similarly disabled people as well as for herself. Recently she came down to London in her wheelchair, which is not battery powered, with another lady who is similarly disadvantaged, Colleen Ford, pushed by Kath's husband and the co-ordinator of the Sheffield branch of the Spastics Society, a lady called Marlene Seedhouse.
It was reading and hearing about their efforts which brought me into this struggle and almost shamed me into doing what I could to try to help. There are many people trying to help. As a result of the campaign, large numbers of people are helping these poor folk. For example, the Sheffield Star began a campaign to help them under the general title "Power to the People". It highlighted their plight, and letters came flooding in from all over the country.
Local Members of Parliament began to ask questions and I put down an early day motion asking for battery powered wheelchairs to be provided for all those who need them. It soon attracted 108 signatures and I hope that we shall obtain more signatures. Sadly, those signatures are largely confined to members of my own party, except for one or two Ulster Unionists who added their signatures because so many people in Northern Ireland are losing limbs. Therefore, Kath Savage and Colleen Ford were pushed in their wheelchairs through the corridors of power and met the all-party parliamentary committee for the disabled which promised to help them.
In my opinion, everybody who enters the fray learns how improved the quality of life can be for the disabled once they receive battery powered wheelchairs. This has stirred the conscience of many people. I wrote to the Minister for Health, who in his reply said:
We have however recognised for a long time that, while it is necessary to bear the financial constraints in mind, the range of wheelchairs supplied by the Department requires to be reviewed. We are keenly aware of the strength of feeling among some wheelchair users that it does not provide them with the kinds of wheelchair they would like to have. For this reason, we have asked Professor Ian McColl, who is chairing an inquiry into the services of artificial limb and appliance centres, to give particular attention to this matter. I know he will be interested to see the leaflet and I will draw it to his attention.
We are very grateful that people who are dedicated to helping these folk have moved more deeply than hitherto into the fray. However, it is not enough. I was told in a recent letter from Mrs. Savage that many disabled people and associations are writing to Professor McColl who chairs the working party review of wheelchairs. Support from all corners of the country has become tremendous and is heartening a wide group of these people, many of whom are sending us letters. One or two who have got the chairs tell us how the whole quality of their life has been changed. Of course, these chairs are for internal use and the ones they use outside still have to be pushed.
I understand that the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy is supporting our campaign. A network of disabled people are interested in this small debate which


is taking place very late. People have let us know that they are watching to see what will result from the debate. Therefore, I hope that something of worth emerges from it.
All those devoted people who spend their lives pushing their loved ones around with such splendid unselfishness and care will also be giving us a great deal of attention because their lives are rendered miserable by the hard work they have to do, especially when they are getting older. Wives and husbands have to push their life partners around at a time when they are not feeling well enough to do it.
I was reminded only today by thy hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), who takes an interest in this for obvious reasons as well as her own humanity, that more women are looking after sick and elderly relatives than are looking after their own children. That statistic came out recently. We would be helping not only the disabled but those selfless people who look after them.
In answer to a series of questions put down to the Department of Health and Social Security the Minister said that the Department does not provide battery-powered wheelchairs for outside use. Why in heaven's name does it not? Other expenditure could be cut so as to provide wheelchairs for these poor people. Let us hope that the working party reports soon and recommends both indoor and outdoor battery-powered chairs for all who need them. Compared with the cost of such horrific things as nuclear weapons, Trident submarines and so on the amount that would be needed would be trivial to ensure that these poor people have one of the necessities of life, a wheelchair.
We cannot afford not to do this. There is a growing demand among these people and among many who are humane enough to realise that so far they have walked past and not taken much interest in the subject. It is our duty to help change the quality of life for our suffering fellow citizens and to restore to them some of their lost human dignity.
I have one more question from a wheelchair-bound mother, aged 45, who lives in the pit village of Maltby in south Yorkshire. Among other things she said:
I think every disabled person has the right to a powered wheelchair. My wheelchair is no good to me without someone pushing it because I am not strong enough to maneouvre it on my own. The national campaign for powered wheelchairs is a wonderful idea and I'm going to work very hard to make it a success.
I hope that the Minister, who is a compassionate man, will do his best to let us have some hope for people who need these wheelchairs so urgently to alter their quality of life and give them more human dignity.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): It is with perhaps more than the conventional courtesy that I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) on having chosen this subject for the Adjournment debate. It is of great interest to everybody concerned with the welfare of disabled people with severely restricted mobility. Certainly we in the Government share that concern and interest. Of course, because of our direct role in the

provision of services for disabled people, more direct than with most other parts of the Health Service, we feel a particular responsibility.
I should like to spend a moment making clear that role and putting into the perspective of the whole wheelchair and appliance service what the hon. Gentleman has said. The wheelchair service is one of the services provided through artificial limb and appliance centres in England. It is, as I said, unusual among health services for disabled people. Like the artificial limb and eye service, the provision of appliances for war pensioners and the provision of motor cars and three-wheelers for those who remain eligible for them, is the direct responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security rather than one discharged by the health authorities, and in that sense I have a direct and personal interest as the Minister with particular day-to-day responsibility for the artificial limb and appliance centres.
This rather odd arrangement, looked at against the background of the Health Service as a whole, reflects the historic development of this part of the service. The wheelchair service had its origins in the centrally administered provision of wheelchairs to ex-service men after the first world war, and although this provision was extended to civilians when the NHS was created in 1948, the service continued to be run by central Government. In 1953 the responsibility for the wheelchair service passed from the Ministry of Pensions to the Ministry of Health, and it subsequently became that of the present Department.
Running the wheelchair service in England is a big task. Apart from the headquarters organisation at Blackpool and a central store at Heywood, the Department has 25 centres and sub-centres through which wheelchairs are provided. The service is staffed by the whole-time equivalent of more than 600 medical, technical and administrative staff, and there is a network of more than 100 approved repairers who provide services under contract to the Department.
The expenditure on the wheelchair service in 1983–84, costed on a commercial basis was about £32.25 million. The rate of growth of the service—this point is not always appreciated—has been impressive. In 1954 there were only 17,000 wheelchairs of all kinds on loan. By 1974 there were more than 10 times as many, and today the figure is about 410,000, and over 160,000 wheelchairs of all types are issued every year.
I hope, therefore, that it will be common ground between us that this is a service in which provision has expanded dramatically over 20 or 30 years and which has gone a long way to meet the needs of the people with whom we are concerned.
The historic development of the service and the rapidly growing demands made on it have been important factors in determining the limits which have had to be placed on the range of wheelchairs it provides. As the number of wheelchair users has grown, so their constitution and needs have changed. From being a service designed for young disabled ex-service men, the wheelchair service has become one providing to a large extent for older people. Indeed, we believe that one user in four — this corresponds with some of the cases that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—is over 80 years of age.
Initially, wheelchairs were provided for a group of men who could be expected to use hand-propelled wheelchairs without assistance. Today, a great part of the ever-increasing demand is, as we see it at present, for simple,


mainly non-powered chairs for occasional use by elderly people when they are accompanied by able-bodied persons. Much of the energy and resources which have gone into the development of the wheelchair service have of necessity, therefore, been devoted to coping with the demand for wheelchairs of a fairly basic type.
Despite this, the service has developed its range of wheelchairs impressively. It currently offers over 250 variant models of non-powered wheelchairs. There are some 50 variants among its powered wheelchairs for indoor use, and there are two basic versions of a power-assisted outdoor wheelchair for attendant control. About 80 per cent. of these chairs are made to departmental specifications, and the rest are the proprietary designs of manufacturers, though the balance is now beginning to change. The Department also supplies a range of accessories, modifications and adaptations to suit individual needs, and custom-built wheelchairs are supplied where there is a medically established requirement.
I nevertheless recognise that, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, there are many disabled people who feel that the service is not fully meeting their needs. There are a large number of powered and manually propelled vehicles which could be added to the range if our resources were unlimited. There are younger wheelchair users who are urging us to provide chairs especially designed for sporting purposes, not powered chairs, but very much more manoeuvrable chairs, and chairs with different characteristics from the standard DHSS wheelchairs.
There are others who suggest that we should provide some of the newer and highly sophisticated non-powered wheelchairs; for example, those which enable the occupant to rise from a sitting to a standing position and to work at a bench or kitchen worktop. There are those, like the hon. Gentleman, who emphasise what they see as the need for powered wheelchairs for outdoor use or for use indoors and outdoors. The range of that sort of chair on the market has grown significantly in recent years. Some will climb kerbs, and some incorporate features normally found in a motor car; for example, lights, a horn and traffic indicators. There is also a range of so-called scooters generally based on three wheels, over which are mounted a platform with a control column and seat.
The cost of extending the Department's wheelchair service into these areas is something which, frankly, it is difficult to calculate. It is not known how many people might be eligible for or want wheelchairs of such kinds, but a conservative estimate would probably put the figure at several thousand pounds and again might correspond with the response to the campaign that the hon. Gentleman reported.
More than 10,000 powered wheelchairs are already issued every year for indoor use or outdoor use with an attendant, and over 18,000 are on issue at any one time. The average cost of an indoor-outdoor powered chair for occupant control is well in excess of £1,000, so it is quite possible that the cost of what the hon. Gentleman—and, indeed, the campaign — is urging could be several million pounds, without taking account of the costs of a repair service.
The cost of extending the service to the other kinds of wheelchair that I have mentioned—for example, for the more active younger users or those who require the more sophisticated kinds of chair with the self-raising capacity — would be considerably greater. Although I do not

want in any way simply to put the emphasis on costs, that is obviously one of the points that any Minister in any Administration would have to bear in mind.
I should also remind the hon. Gentleman that a large number of people who need a wheelchair are also in receipt of a mobility allowance or a war pensioner's mobility supplement. If they choose to do so, they can use their cash benefit to buy a wheelchair outside the Department's range, and they can seek the help of the organisation Motability, which I am sure will be familiar to the hon. Gentleman, in obtaining one on favourable terms. It is not the case that the mobility allowance is tied to expenditure on a car, for example, or, indeed, that the activities of Motability are tied to help with the provision of a car. The Government meet the whole of Motability's administrative costs, this year to the tune of some £425,000, and that is something that we are glad to do in view of the way that it can help disabled people to turn their mobility allowance cash into a vehicle or, as I have suggested, a wheelchair on the road.
However, I accept that that is not a complete response to the aspirations of disabled people and those who, as the hon. Gentleman has done this evening, seek to represent their interests. It is for that reason that we are doing a number of things.
The most important is the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred and, indeed, on which he has corresponded with Ministers, that is, the setting up of the independent working party under the chairmanship of Professor Ian McColl to study all the services provided through the Department's artificial limb and appliance centres. That working party has already undertaken a fundamental analysis of the structure and costs of the wheelchair service, and is evaluating its effectiveness and the options both for evolutionary development and for more radical change.
One of the matters to which it is paying particular attention is the range of wheelchairs available through the service. We expect to receive the working party's report by the summer and, when it is available, we shall obviously give careful consideration to any recommendations that it may make.
In addition to the recommendations of the working party, we are looking to the efforts being made within the Department itself to increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the wheelchair service, which would be of obvious relevance to any proposals to extend it still further. Economies are being achieved by measures such as the introduction of the computerised stock control system, which allowed stocks at the central store to be reduced by some £2·5 million in the second half of 1984. Internal studies, for example of the storage operation, together with several independent studies commissioned by the working party, are providing a basis for other economies that may in due course enable improvements to be introduced into the service without increasing its overall cost.
In a broader sense, I should also mention the work that we have set in hand to improve the information base for future planning of services and benefits for disabled people. The valuable pioneering survey of the disabled that Amelia Harris carried out some 15 years ago did not attempt to identify groups of people with specific wheelchair needs. We hope that in the new survey of disabled people, on which work is currently in progress, it will be possible to include questions that go some way


towards identifying numbers and kinds of potential wheelchair users, because that would help us in the planning that we would wish to consider.
More immediately relevant to the subject raised by the hon. Gentleman is the attention that the Department is giving to the possibility of commissioning an evaluation study of the powered outdoor wheelchairs that are on the market. The questions that need to be addressed in such a study are being considered at the moment, and it is proposed to seek outside expert advice in drawing up possible terms of reference for such a study.
Whether the Department's range of wheelchairs may be extended to include occupant-controlled powered wheelchairs for outdoor use is something about which I cannot, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand, give a firm undertaking here and now. Indeed, it would be quite

wrong for me to attempt to anticipate the report of the McColl working party, in view of the work on which I commented a moment ago.
I should like to repeat to the House, and particularly to the hon. Gentleman, who has taken a close and valuable interest in those matters, my assurance that we very much understand the pressure that the hon. Gentleman has reflected and very much sympathise with the problems for people with severely restricted mobility — problems which underly the debate. When we study the working party's findings, we shall bear carefully in mind everything that the hon. Gentleman has said today and the other efforts that he has made to advance that important cause.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Four o'clock am.